Archive for the ‘Immigration’ Category

It’s been nearly two decades since it was established, but the U.K.’s Independence Party(UKIP) isn’t going away, and indeed, it has begun to make inroads, particularly at the local level. The larger reason for this opportunity may be that the establishment Tory party, long considered the UK’s “conservatives,” have abandoned conservative policies in favor of progressive ideas. If that sounds familiar to you, it should, because in many respects, our own Republican party, long-portrayed in media as virtually synonymous with “conservative” has been behaving like liberals. Of course, the Tories in the UK have always been more slanted to the left than had been our Republicans, but lately, they’ve all but abandoned any pretense to conservative thought. As this has happened, it has had a curious effect on the Independence Party, swelling its ranks lately and giving it a real foothold in local elections. UKIP seems to understand this is a fight over the long run, and not a battle to be won in an election cycle or two. Their leader, Nigel Farage, made clear in an interview with Foxnews what is the UKIP’s aim:

“We want to take back our country, we want to take back our government, and we want to take back our birthright,”

If this sounds familiar to Tea Party activists, it should. Just like the Republicans here, the Tories have begun to fully embrace National Healthcare, and all sorts of left-wing ideals, including liberal immigration policies, and the whole slate of liberal policy preferences advocated and advanced by their Labor Party. the U.K.’s equivalent to our own Democrats. The largest strategic difference between the Tea Party and the UKIP is that rather than seeking to influence the Tories, the Independence Party is in direct competition with them. They are not trying to work on the party from within, but instead making a full frontal assault on the establishment “Conservatives.” While not precisely like the Tea Party in all respects, in terms of a movement, it is quite similar in its grass-roots orientation.

Naturally, they are dismissed as “racists” and “kooks” and all sorts of demeaning labels by both the traditional parties, but that isn’t stopping them from moving ahead. Dishonest labels only work so long, as does the attempt to define the whole of the party by the bombastic or outrageous statements of a few individuals within it. More, the UKIP has focused on an issue that seems to a majority of voters across party lines: Membership in the EU. UKIP opposes it while both Labor and the Tories favor it, despite the fact that a clear majority of the populace stands in favor of withdrawing from the EU. With this on the table in 2014, UKIP stands to make further inroads as the only party pushing in the same direction as the populace.

This is in many respects like the arguments on two issues we face domestically. The first is Obama-care, and the second is immigration. In both cases, the US population is opposed by strong majorities to any sort of amnesty and continuance of the health-care law. While there are still some Republicans who are opposed to amnesty, and a few more in favor of repeal of Obama-care, the fact remains that a large number of Republicans in both houses of Congress are in favor of an amnesty deal, and distinguishing by their votes, have been only too willing to fund and thereby continue Obama-care.

If UKIP manages to pull off some electoral victories, it may offer a hint to Tea Party activists in the US: It may be time to put up its own slate of candidates, completely independent of the Republicans, and it may be time to formally register as a political party. The sorts of clear issues in which the American people are at odds with both major political parties may be reaching a climax, at which one party or the other must disappear. This is what happened to the Whigs one and one-half centuries ago, and it may be the end in store for the Republicans if Tea Party activists can get their act together. Like more and more voters in Britain, Americans may discover that they have no need of both a conservative party and a fake conservative party. If this comes to be the case in the U.K., it may evince hope for a resurgence of the Tea Party, perhaps under a new banner independent in all respects of the Republican Party.

Enough is enough. Readers will surely remember how in the summer of 2010, we nearly stopped Obama-care with great turn-out at town-hall events at which we grilled members (of both parties) on the matter of the “Affordable Care Act.” Members of the House and Senate rose each morning to find new Youtube videos of their colleagues being outed as fools and charlatans. Since then, many have gone to a system of tele-Townhalls in order to avoid such spectacles, but that shouldn’t stop us. We need to know where these fence-sitters on immigration will be holding their town-hall events, and we need to know even where amnesty’s open supporters will be taking questions from constituents, even if it’s on the streets going in and out of meeting locations. We need to show up in order to make a fuss. No violence. No foul language. We’re polite people, but we shouldn’t be push-overs. Just ask the damning questions and demand answers:

“Given that this legislation is likely to create 20-30 million new US citizens over the next decade, and given that seven in nine new immigrants register and vote Democrat, how do you propose that Republicans will ever have even a chance at future electoral victory?”

“Why would you go along with what is essentially a treason against the American worker?”

“What are you being offered or promised to support this treason?”

“If letting in 12-30 million people predominately from Mexico and points South will be good for the American economy, why isn’t their remaining in place good for the economies of their countries of origin?”

“Teen unemployment is over fifty percent this summer. Unemployment among African Americans is at stunningly high levels. How does infusing the economy with 12-30 million mostly low-skill workers assist our unemployed fellow-Americans who are struggling to make ends meet?”

“Why does Congress and this President together refuse to enforce the laws on the books today?”

“Why does the compassion and concern of members of Congress extend to illegal immigrants, but not to US Citizens?”

“Can you comment on the political influence of large corporations and unions in pushing this immigration bill? The US Chamber of Commerce and the AFL-CIO joining forces to help craft the Senate bill can’t possibly be good for America(ns.) What is your position on that bill? I ask, because it seems that House efforts are aimed at passing something so the Senate bill can be substituted in its entirety in conference.”

“Is it true that any House bill that passes could be essentially replaced by House-Senate conferees with the Gang-of-Eight bill? Yes or no?”

“What is your position on the so-called “Hastert rule?” Do you believe Speaker Boehner will apply that rule to any immigration conference bill? What is likely to happen if he doesn’t?”

I’m sure you can come up with your own, but the simple fact is that these people need to be held to answer for this mess. We know what they’re trying to do, and it’s time we put a stop to it.

If you know where your Congressman is holding a town hall meeting, please post it in comments. This will help other readers get to the meetings. I will create a posting with as many of them as readers provide. We need maximum participation. What we will need to succeed on this and other issues is to put these men and women who we’ve elected to represent us on the spot. They need to be able to explain their positions on immigration reform, but more, on the process by which the process will come to a vote. They need most of all to explain how any House bill won’t become a Trojan horse for the Senate bill.

The truth is that they won’t be able to explain it away, so we must hold their feet to the fire on this issue by demanding they answer the hard questions.

Now that we’re in August, a time when Congress goes on recess, returning home to hear from their constituents, we grass-roots conservatives have an opportunity. Somewhere near you, members will probably hold a few town hall meetings. You need to be there. Leadership has coached them on the issues of immigration and funding Obama-care, but for the sake of argument, let us prioritize a bit. The Republican leadership wants to push a bill through the House that will be a head-fake on immigration. It will promise all sorts of seemingly nifty gimmicks on border control, but you need not be fooled: This is about passing some bill, any bill at all, so that in conference with the Senate, they can shove the Gang-of-Tr8ors bill down our throats. Our answer to them in their town hall meetings must be plain and simple: No bill! Any bill they pass in the House will merely become a vehicle for a Senate bill that will grant amnesty. They don’t really give a damn about border security, or doing anything about the millions of illegals who have ignored our laws already. We must stop this process cold, but we must not permit ourselves to be bought-off with phony promises that will never be kept. When the opportunity arises to tell you House members what you think, don’t miss it, and let them know you will not be fooled. Your only answer on immigration must be: “Kill the bill.”

They really do believe we are stupid. Our less-engaged fellow Americans give them plenty of reason to believe this, since they’re often completely distracted by other things, but that’s where we come in. We must let our fellow citizens know that the two parties in Washington DC are conspiring against them in order to manipulate them into a position in which it appears as though they have supported the laws Congress wishes to enact. In order to help you understand what lies ahead in the coming weeks, I’ve drawn the process as a flow-chart. (Click it to see full-size version.)

How they’ll push the bill…

The simple fact is that the bulk of the Republican party in Washington DC wants this bill. They are doing the bidding of big business, but also the progressive wing of the party that is for all intents and purposes a fifth-column, stealth-mode gaggle of shills for the larger leftist-progressive movement that dominates DC, and the entire media establishment. These are the elites in the Republican party, and they hate your guts. In order to trick you, they are preparing to put on a show that will involve pretending to gather your opinions, while hoping you’ll be too busy or distracted to offer them. They will go through this recess and take up the bill that has been working its way through committees in the House, and move to pass it before or immediately after the Labor Day weekend. Once passed, the bill will go to conference, and all these promises of border security and combating illegal immigration will be scrapped in favor of the Senate version. Then it will go back to both chambers for a final vote, where mostly Democrats will support the bill in both Houses. There is only one way for the American people to win: We must kill any House bill on immigration, even if we are compelled to heckle our own members at town-hall meetings. This must be defeated.

I cannot repeat this point often enough: The final bill will be passed with a majority of Democrats supporting it. That’s right, this entire process is being rigged so that it can be passed with only a couple hands-full of Republicans supporting it. They only need a few RINOs in the Senate, and in the House, they will only need a couple-dozen Republicans of the RINO wing of the party. The key is to push some bill through the House so they can get it to conference. Once that’s accomplished, the RINOs can and will do whatever they please. We have discussed ad nauseum all the reasons the “immigration reforms” being pushed by the DC establishment is horrible for the country, but the most important consideration for you is this: It’s their attempt to permanently negate the conservative wing of the party. Once they herd 30 million new immigrants into the voting booths, it won’t matter what you think about anything.

This means that our only hope of saving the country begins and ends with the defeat of any immigration bill brought up in the House of representatives. There is no other way around it, and no other way we can expect to bring this plot of the DC statists to an end. We need maximum participation at such town-hall meetings as Republicans may hold in the coming weeks, and we need to be fearless, loud, and clear: On the issue of immigration, the only acceptable answer is “Kill the Bill.” If we permit them to fool us, we will have missed our last opportunity to begin the process of saving the republic. Any House immigration bill must die.

It should come as no surprise to conservatives that we’re being shafted on virtually every issue by some gang-of-eight or other assembly of Republicans who simply will not stand up to the Democrats. Normally, I don’t spend much time guessing at their motives, instead tending to examine the results of their positions. I don’t necessarily assume that our GOP establishment opponents are evil, but merely misguided. This view has been changing, because the more closely I examine their positions, the more baffled I become by any logical standard of measurement. The problem is that discovering their motive has become increasingly important to the prospect of defeating them. If we understood what it is that they’re after, we might find it somewhat easier to beat them or make them irrelevant. Sadly, I have begun to conclude that my worst fears may be true. The GOP’s establishment wing clearly runs the show, leading us to perpetual defeat. It is time to ask ourselves why by considering the issues on which they’ve abandoned conservatism.

My first question must go to folks like Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan(R-WI) on the issue of immigration reform: “Are you stupid?” I know this will seem a bit blunt to some people, but it’s a sincere question. The Senate Gang-of-Tr8ors bill offers to create between twelve and thirty million new citizens over the coming decade. We already know that the overwhelming majority of them will be Latinos of Mexican origin, and that their tendency is to vote for the Democrats by a seven-to-two ratio or worse, once they become eligible. What sort of complete and utter moron must one be to believe this could in any way redound to the benefit of the Republican party, conservatism, or even our nation’s future? Given the stance of Ryan and his cohorts, we are left to conclude that there can be only two things driving their position. Either they are among the most pathetically irrational and moronic persons, or they must know what will happen and wish to gain that result. There are no alternatives.

On the issue of the budget, the establishment Republicans insist that we must support Paul Ryan’s pathetic, tinkering attempt at reform, even though it establishes no concrete foundation of reform, instead promising to reduce the rate of growth of the deficit, but not arresting it entirely, never mind addressing the mounting debt. More, when you call members of the House or Senate to demand an explanation as to how the official National Debt count has been stuck for two months running, despite the fact that the government is taking on more debt, none of the Republican members seem all too interested in finding an explanation. Once again, we are confronted with the question: Are these people simply oblivious? Why aren’t they screaming at the top of their lungs? Here you have an administration that is exceeding the statutory debt limit by billions of dollars, and in order to disguise it, they’ve stopped the debt clock. Other than the frozen clock, they’ve continued business as usual. What good is a sequestration of funds? What good is a debt limit fight if the guys who must engage have already surrendered? Do you believe for one moment that Paul Ryan or the rest of the RINO phalanx in Washington DC is unaware? Do you believe they are so incompetent as to miss the significance of these Treasury Department actions? It is either true that they are so incompetent that we must for the good of the nation replace them, or they are willing to let Obama do what he’s doing, in which case we must be rid of them for the same reason.

I have said many times that it doesn’t really matter whether they’re simply foolish or guilty of collusion, but I’ve come to change my view on this. One can’t forgive negligence born of incompetence, but one must punish willful misdeeds more harshly as a warning to other would-be scoff-laws. It’s a matter of intent. Are the establishment Republicans in Washington DC, under the “leadership” of John Boehner(R-OH,) Mitch McConnell(R-OH,) and all the other big-government Republicans simply guilty of foolishness and incompetence, or is their behavior evidence of malice? This is the ugly question we must ask ourselves, because we may choose one or the other alternative postulate, but never both.

It’s now clear to me that the Republican party as expressed by its “leaders” in Washington DC is in open collusion with the Democrats and President Obama. There is no other way to explain their willingness to go along, knowing what the results will be. On Benghazi, they help the Democrats obfuscate, and on the IRS scandal, they gum up the works, but on legislative matters of significance, they are lending an assist to Democrats: On immigration, the budget and debt ceiling, the funding of Obama-care, and a range of somewhat less significant issues at the moment, they are not merely capitulating, but assisting the Democrats. They must be either the largest collection of stupid people in any government on the planet, or they intend the results their efforts are obtaining. It cannot be both.

A conservative must now ask with pointed clarity: Does it matter if John Boehner or some lunatic Democrat wins his seat in 2014? Does it matter in the least if Lamar Alexander or some Tennessee Democrat wins that Senate seat in 2014? The answer is yes: The prospective Democrat in either case is at least being honest about his or her intentions, in the main, at least to the degree that by running as Democrats, we voters may make an accurate guess about what sort of legislation will result. This cannot be said of the RINOs in the GOP. By running as Republicans, there has been at least the implicit idea that such candidates will oppose statism, but that simply hasn’t been the case. If ever there had been a time in American history when the willingness of voters to be true to themselves was the most critical aspect of their political activism and engagement, now must be that time. We must admit in the open what we have long suspected: The establishment wing of the GOP consists of traitors to every value and ideal we hold sacred, because they are in open collusion with those who are actively seeking the destruction of our country.

I’m a conservative, and I’m also a “republican,” but I am the latter only in the sense of a lower-case “r.” I believe in the republican form of government promised in Article IV, section 4, of the US Constitution. Many Republicans (members of the political party) seem to be confused about what this means, and I suppose it is only fair to make them aware of the distinctions between the things many current Republicans now advocate that violate the platform and the principles of republicanism that their party claims to uphold. Those who become confused about what it means to be a RINO (“Republican In Name Only”) need only consider the small “r” form of the word. It’s easy to fill out a voter registration card and check the box beside the word “Republican,” but it’s another matter entirely to know what is republicanism. As we debate issues of critical import to the future of the nation, it’s more important than ever that conservatives know what it is they are fighting, and what form it takes. The outcome of 2014 and 2016 will set the course of the nation for generations, and we must win it. This is the heart of the battle between the so-called RINOs and we constitutional conservatives, and it will determine our nation’s future.

One of the concepts that has long been associated with republicanism is that we hold in disdain the notion of a “ruling class,” a presumptively superior elite who by virtue of some unknown mechanism somehow know better than the rest of us with respect to how we ought to be governed. Indeed, when our republic was established, it was with the experience of a people who had freed themselves from the bonds of a King, who claimed his right to rule over us by virtue of his station of birth. I do not doubt that some people are superior to others in some particular way, but nearly everybody can claim some attribute in which they are superior to most others. Some of that is a result of education, experience and training, while some of it results from pure genetic gifts. There is no gene, however, that entitles one man to rule over others. There exists no family lineage in America that can rightly claim to exercise a disproportionate power over the affairs of nations and men. We do not have kings, and while there were a few in early America who advocated for a monarchy, the broad body of the American people rejected the idea as an apostasy aimed at thwarting the very revolution in which they had only so recently succeeded.

The only thing I hold in greater contempt than the man (or woman) who would claim the right to rule over me by virtue of family lineage or family station(a.k.a. “nobility”) is the poor, twisted soul who would consent to such a proposition. I am no person’s chattel, and I abhor any human being who claims membership in this species who would surrender themselves as having been of no greater significance than a possession of “better” men. Those lacking the essential self-esteem to realize that they are by right the sovereigns over their own affairs, equal to any other on the planet, ought to immediately depart these shores to seek refuge in some Kingdom as a serf. In this sense, it is fair to say that I not only reject a supposed “ruling class,” but also that I likewise hold in contempt the corollary premise of a “ruled class.” Part of the republican ideal is that classes are a subjectively-defined fraud perpetrated against a people who ought not to be willing to accept it. Why is it that so many Republicans prefer to think of Americans in a class system little different from their alleged ideological opponents, the statists? The answer is that too many Republicans are statists themselves, having rejected the fundamentals of republicanism.

By what strange and mystical knowledge do the brothers Bush claim to have the better answer on the subject of immigration, both now pushing the Gang-ofTr8ors Bill? Why do so many Republicans accept their claim in the unthinking form of a command received from on high? It is because too many Republicans have either surrendered or rejected the republican principles under whose banner they march. If you listen closely enough, you can hear in their intentionally vague language the lost concepts that they will not name, never having believed in them from the outset. Although a few are now catching themselves in pursuit of the betterment of their propagandists’ art, you will invariably hear them speak of democracy as the goal and the object of their advocacy. This is not merely loose wording, but a true reflection of the form of government they seek, a form so terrible that our founders placed a stricture against it in the US constitution in the form of an endorsement of republican government.

A democracy is not a form of government most rational people would want, except that they have been taught that it is the desired form. To hear a President say that he wishes to spread democracy to the Middle East is an arrow through the heart of republicanism. We have seen what democracy creates in the Middle East and throughout the Arab-speaking world. Pakistan is a democracy. Egypt is now a democracy. Libya is now a putative democracy. Iraq now is a sort of hybrid democracy, but in each of them, what you will observe is how the whole course of the nation is changed by political instabilities, and that the rule of law acts as no restraint upon political leaders in working their will. Barack Obama is intent on turning the US into a democracy, because democracy is always the precursor to despotism. Most of the worst thugs of the twentieth century came to power on a wave of popular support that defines the democratic model: He(or she) with the biggest mob wins. Even now, in Cairo, when the military perceived that President Morsi (the Muslim Brotherhood’s stooge,) no longer held sway over the largest mob, they placed him under house arrest and offered an interim president who will enjoy for at least a time some popular support. Throughout the third world, it is fair to say that most countries have adopted some form of governance that lurches repeatedly and often from some sort of feigned democracy to absolute despotism.

A republican form of government is much more stable, and it has been the underlying root of our general prosperity for some two-hundred-twenty years, with a few notable exceptions, in largest measure because nearly all of the occupants of the land had accepted the orderly rule of law and the specific, constitutional methodology by which laws are to be adopted, modified, or repealed. Having a set of rules that is inflexible, particularly with respect to changing those rules, and obtaining the consent of those who must live under them for a span of two centuries is an extraordinary feat in human history. The dire flaw in all of this is that from the moment of its adoption, people begin to conspire to overthrow it in one fashion or another, by finding loopholes, imagining a “flexibility” that does not exist, inciting rebellion against it, or seizing power over it with which to subsequently ignore the mandates of the law.

In American history, we have seen all of these methods employed, indeed, some of them are being employed even now, as our President conspires with his cabinet to ignore the rule of law, ignoring the plain language of the law as often and as thoroughly as they believe they can manage in a particular political context. What good is a law that those who are charged with enforcing it refuse to rise to carry it into execution? When the public officials whose job it is to see to it that subordinate officials execute the law refuse to discipline those who will not obey, always claiming as an excuse some alleged greater “public good,” what you are witnessing is the reduction of a republic to the state of a pre-despotic democracy.

Many Americans who are demonstrably ignorant of the world’s history of governance believe that our Electoral College is anti-democratic, and on this basis, advocate its repeal, demanding instead to rely upon a majority (or plurality) of the popular vote. While they are correct that the Electoral College is undemocratic, their ignorance is born of an educational system that has misled them to expect majoritarian rule in all cases as the preferred model. Naturally, that same system has failed to teach them about federalism, the ninth and tenth amendments, and the whole construct that is a constitutional, representative republic, being the precise form of government the framers of the US constitution did adopt and ratify .

Informing them of this distinction, many are still suspicious of it, because it sounds strange and foreign to them, most under the age of forty having never been taught a syllable about it in the government schools. Even in the school from which I graduated a long, long time ago, the senior-year civics class was entitled “Problems of Democracy.” Had I been a more thoroughly-engaged student, I might have questioned it then, but like virtually all of my peers, I did as I was told, never considering a word of it. It would take years of study to unlock the knowledge of which I had been cheated, and at first, I resisted it. How could all of this be true? How could America not be a “democracy?” How could democracy be a bad thing? This is where many Americans get hopelessly stuck, because we’ve adopted the flexible language of lunatics, where we interchange words with the imprecise vulgarity of schoolyard bullies. “The difference between a democracy and a republic won’t matter to you so much after I beat your face.”

The truth about democracy is what has always been its fatal flaw, perhaps best described by a phrase often mistakenly attributed to Benjamin Franklin, but possessed of perfectly sanguine execution, irrespective of its source:

“Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what will be for lunch.”

Indeed, in a true democracy, there can be no protections of any minority but by violence. This was the great object the framers of our constitution had hoped to impede. They knew that majoritarian rule is no form of government for a peaceable, civil society, and that such governments are always ripe for manipulation by unscrupulous and demagogic usurpers. The whole purpose of all their checks and balances had been to obstruct to the degree humanly possible the sort of instability made easier by democratic rule. Their constitution set at odds every branch of government, and even divisions within branches, like the House and Senate. It relied upon a competing fight for sovereign power between the several states and the federal government, all at odds in most cases, except when the most pressing of public crises may discipline them to more affable cooperation. This was their plan, and their intention, and they hoped that in little-modified form, it could survive some severe tests that they knew would come, as they must for all nations.

With the onset of the progressive era in the early twentieth century, there was a move toward greater “democratization,” that brought with it a string of constitutional amendments, causing a great unwinding of our nation. The 16th, creating an authority to tax income (and the legal establishment of a class system;) the 17th, changing the manner of election of US Senators; the 18th, instituting prohibition; the 19th finally giving women the right to full political participation all came in this era, with only one of them(the 19th) having been justifiable among civilized people, and one of them(the 18th) creating such terror that it was ultimately repealed by the 21st amendment. Progressive Republicans of that era helped to install these amendments, and none of them did more damage to the system of checks and balances the framers had invented than the 17th amendment. It effectively muted the voices of the states as sovereigns in the federal system. It did so by causing Senators to be popularly elected in their respective states, shutting out the state governments as a confounding, obstructive influence on the growth of centralized government.

Our republican form of government was constructed to sub-divide government into so many competing segments and interests that it would be nearly impossible for any one interest to gain supremacy. It succeeded in many ways so long as politicians held onto the general republican ideals, for more than a century generally held by members of both parties. (It is instructive to remember that the forebears of the modern Democrat Party called themselves “Democratic Republicans” for many years before dropping the second half of their name with the ascendancy of Andrew Jackson.) It is therefore no surprise that a Democrat party would become the party of the slave-holding South, or that the Republicans would supplant the Whigs by championing the rights of an enslaved minority. Words, including even party labels, meant something distinct in those days.

In the progressive era, mostly for the sake of political expediency, there were a number of Republicans who began to adopt more democratic notions of governance, including the predisposition of their Democrat brethren to an elitist view of a class system not only in the general populace, but also among political offices and those who occupied them. The influences of corporations grew, as did the corrupting influence of gangsters during prohibition. From that era arose an establishment of Republicans who were nothing of the sort, and with few exceptions, have managed to maintain a fairly strong control over that party, most often as the minority party. Viewed in this fashion, it could be said rightly that the Republican Party has been charged with managing the real republicans into submission.

Who are the real advocates of republicanism in the Republican Party? Nowadays, we call them “conservatives,” although they are actually the philosophical heirs to the classical liberals of the late eighteenth century, by and large. “Conservative” is approximately opposite of “liberal” or “progressive” in popular connotation, and since the Democrats had successfully co-opted the term “liberal,” despite being nothing of the sort, they managed to carry off a vast fraud on the American people using a sort of primitive branding that set conservatives against the liberal Democrats and the progressive Republicans. It has been in this approximate form ever since, with the Republicans adopting “moderate” from time to time as a way to escape linkage with the frightful failures of the progressive era.

Now come we full circle to the moment that is both the beginning and the end. The Bush clan seems to have some special public sense of duty to rule over the country, as evinced by the fact that despite having had two members of their clan accumulate two solid decades of first influence and then dominance over the Republican Party, they are far from finished. Their ideas are as progressive as any Democrat you will ever meet, the singular difference being that they seem to temper the left’s radical secularism with public professions of faith in the Almighty. Put in plainer language, they are approximately ecumenical communists, and their particular subset of the broad statist philosophy is known as communitarianism. Whatever did you think is “compassionate conservatism?”

They don’t believe in the supremacy of the individual over the interests of the community. Most conservatives are almost precisely opposite in philosophical leanings to the communitarian front, being Christian individualists in the main. While they certainly work in their communities and contribute to them greatly, they believe in an individualized form of salvation, and an individual responsibility in obtaining it. The communitarians conceive instead a form of “collective salvation.” If that term sounds vaguely familiar to you, it is because your current president has used it too. In this sense, it is fair to say that from Bush the elder, to Barack Obama, we have been on a nonstop course of communitarianism since 1989. They do not believe in the small “r” republicanism of our founders, and they certainly do not believe in the containment of the state, the only discernible difference being their apparent relative positions on the scale between religious and secular intent.

To demolish the United States will require demolishing its distinct culture, any sort of nationalistic sentiment among its people, and the broadening of the definitions of citizenship and nationhood. Did you think the Senate’s amnesty bill was just about cheap labor? It is about deconstructing the United States as a sovereign entity responsive to the interests of its inhabitants. Now that brothers George W. and Jeb Bush are openly pushing for the Senate bill in the House, or indeed any bill at all that can be a vehicle for the Senate bill in conference, one should be able to discern quite clearly that more is at stake in the matter than cheap labor for some construction contractors.

For those of you who now wonder how any of this pertains to small “r” republicanism, it is so simple as this: Very few of your elected leaders or even your supposed “conservative” spokesmen are interested in the sort of republicanism your founders brought out of deliberations from a sweltering Philadelphia convention. If you wish to discern who are Republicans of the “RINO” construct and who are actual republicans, you need only key on their records of adherence to lowercase “r” republican principles, including primarily their previous adherence to the US constitution and its framers’ intent. Flowery words don’t matter. Professions of faith aren’t enough. Look at their records. Look at their ideas and the principles upon which they rely. If you are constitutional conservatives, you must in the name of all you cherish perfect the ability to recognize the charlatans at a mile’s distance. In Washington DC, and in states’ capitals, Republicans are legion, while actual republicans are few, and it’s a ratio we must reverse.

If you’re a politically-engaged conservative, you couldn’t possibly have failed to notice the passage of the so-called “Gang-of-Eight” immigration bill in the Senate on Thursday afternoon. In the end, fourteen Republican sell-outs stepped up and voted for this abomination, with all fifty-four Democrats, meaning the bill will go on to the House. There were many more than fourteen Republican sell-outs who made this bill possible, and I will be reminding you of the entire list as we move into 2014 mid-term election mode, but for now, we must focus on what lies ahead. Readers will have heard reports that John Boehner is calling the Senate bill “dead on arrival,” or that “the House will have its own bill.” Let me assure you that John Boehner is a liar, and he is attempting to manipulate those who don’t understand the process or follow so closely as my readers. Speaker Boehner(R-OH) intends to give you the Senate bill, but to do it, he must shepherd some bill through the House, that could be almost anything pertaining to the broad scope of “immigration.” Some will not be informed of the angle on which Boehner and the other Amnesty-Traitors’ gambit relies, so that in order to stop him and his henchmen of the GOP establishment of the House, I must now make clear why we must urge our Congressmen to kill any bill. We must obstruct it altogether or get the Gang-of-Eight bill when it comes back from conference.

In order for a bill to go to the President to be signed into law, it must be passed in identical form in both houses of Congress. Ultimately, the same legislative language that passes in the House must also pass the Senate, or vice versa. Since both the House and the Senate are independent in theory, the two frequently pass bills on a similar matter, but the two bills may be significantly different. In order to rectify the bills, and make them identical, both chambers provide a certain number of people who will represent their body in a conference committee that works out the details of the law so that when they are finished, their final product is known widely as the “conference bill,” or the “conference report.” At that point, the bill in its completed, rectified, unified form goes back to the both bodies, and they vote again. If the conference bill passes in both houses, off to the President’s desk it goes for a signature enacting it as law, or a veto turning it aside.

The reason I am bothering with the Civics 101 recital of process is because I know that without understanding this, some Americans, many in fact, will fall for Speaker John Boehner’s ruse. You see, Speaker Boehner can (and I can promise you he will try) to pass the most conservative-seeming bill he thinks he can get through the House. It will doubtless be full of provisions that will seem strict, possibly “draconian,” compared to the Senate bill, and this will be done for a reason: Speaker Boehner needs some bill to pass the House, and its particulars don’t matter in the least to him. What Boehner and his henchmen Harry Reid and Barack Obama already know is that no matter how thoroughly conservative the House bill may be, it will be stripped from the final language of the conference report.

It is at this point that some people become frustrated with the process, because, they reason, it still has to return to the House for yet another vote for final passage after the conference produces the final form of the bill. Surely, the Republicans who sent the bill to conference would not vote for a watered-down version of their bill? True, most Republicans will not vote for such a watered-down bill, but John Boehner doesn’t need all the Republicans. He needs only a few hands-full, along with the whole body of the Democrat caucus. That’s right: Speaker Boehner doesn’t care what the form of the initial House bill will be, because it will be discarded in any event. In the end, what comes back from conference will be almost entirely the language of the Senate bill, and the House will be forced to vote on it, but even if four in five Republicans vote against its watered-down language, the one-in-five combined with all of the Democrats will be sufficient to pass the bill. In other words, a Republican Speaker of the House will rely upon the Democrats to pass the bill, along with a few establishment Republican stooges.

Then you will be faced with a new law that Senator Richard Shelby(R-AL) termed “the mother-of-all-amnesties.” The Democrats will march their members up to vote, even if they’re from relatively more conservative districts, and Boehner and the leadership will walk as many off the plank as needed to give them a margin of ten to fifteen. If it’s close, members on both sides of the aisle will be threatened and extorted and it will be made clear to them that they will lose all committee assignments and maybe staff or office selection if they manage to be re-elected when the Speaker throws them under the bus in 2014. Yes, and it could get more ugly even than this, but what you mustn’t forget is that the way to preclude this entire fiasco is still to convince your members of the House to vote against any immigration bill in any form, no matter how conservative it may seem. Whatever they promise, it won’t be the final form of the bill, but in order to foist on us what will be substantially the Senate version of the bill, they must pass something. Anything. Four lines that say: Close the border! It really doesn’t matter. Any bill passed by the House will be a vehicle by which to put forward the President’s bill, which is the Senate bill.

Unspoken and invisible through most of this debate has been President Obama. This is because he’s a political liability given his spate of scandals and his recent failure on gun control, such that if the bill becomes about him, it will fail. They have kept him in the shadows. This is why he has gone away to Africa. They want him far away from Washington DC when all of this goes down, and you can be sure that when the time comes to pass a bill in the House, he’ll either be talking about other issues or be out of town on another golf outing. Upon his return, the bill will have been passed, he’ll hold a Rose Garden signing ceremony, and accompany it with a signing statement proclaiming the border secure, so that there’s no reason to delay amnesty, even if one believes such provisions might materialize somehow in the final bill.

This is the dirty, fetid political sewer into which John Boehner and the other establishment Republicans have taken you. This is the manner by which they intend to sell you out for once and for all. They don’t care if you won’t vote for them in coming elections. They’re either in safe seats, or they’ll jump ship and become Democrats in order to win re-election with the votes of all of those they will now make eligible. Understanding the game that is afoot, it’s important to understand that the only way, the absolutely, positively only way to ensure that the Senate bill never sees the light of day as law is to make sure that John Boehner and his co-conspirators in the House cannot pass any bill of any sort on the subject of immigration.

This will be difficult, because Soros-funded, phony “conservative” groups are running radio ads that make it all sound as though the bill will be wonderful and conservative. It’s all a lie, but these ads air during your favorite conservative radio talk-shows, and they’re formatted and scripted to mislead you. The hosts don’t have much say-so about it, because they don’t own the networks or the radio stations, and they can’t necessarily affect the advertising that airs during their shows, and in some cases may not even be aware of some of it. In any event, their contracts likely prevent them from talking badly about any advertiser, so that even if they do know, they may be forbidden from saying the first thing against it.

That makes our problem even more difficult, because many people who would be inclined to call their Representatives to oppose the passage of any bill if only they knew the full details are going to be hoodwinked by all of this. At best, some will be confused, and they will be noncommittal, so that they will freeze in place and do nothing while Boehner and his cohorts put an end to the American republic. I am detailing all of this for you, my readers, because I know you share these articles, because if we are to penetrate the wall of deceit that has been erected around this bill, we must inform our fellow Americans, and we must make it plain to them, and we must arm them with the full knowledge of the game. Readers here know the game all too well, from sell-outs on the debt ceiling, or virtually anything else to pass out of the House since John Boehner became Speaker. We must stop the House bill dead in its tracks, no matter how attractive it may seem, because it will be used to push a horrible bill through in its place without a single vote from anybody who might be considered even approximately “conservative.”

It’s a tall order, but Americans are tall in spirit, and the patriots that hold this country together even against this current onslaught are giants, and it is because I know this that I believe we can kill this bill, but we must educate, and inform, and agitate like we have never done before. The left and the Republican establishment will try to get us off message, and try to derail us, but this legislation is the greatest threat to the future of the Republic in our lifetimes, and it’s high time we take the measure of this beast and knock it down. I know we can, but will we? That is the question I place before you, in the hope that you will answer as Americans always must.

Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals describes for would-be community organizers how they can carry out widespread attacks on as many fronts as possible, leaving their opponents in a hopelessly defensive position, confused, unfocused and rudderless. In such a state, it’s far more difficult to organize a response and go on the offensive. In our current political environment, it’s a standard approach of the statists to try to keep we conservatives off-balance, and continually spinning around to defend against another knife in the back, but falling for this is the easy path to defeat. The Cloward and Piven strategy provides the blueprint for overwhelming the welfare state as a method to drive us into full-bore socialism. We conservatives should be too smart to fall for these tactics, and we can use our energies so much more effectively if we focus on a single front, concentrate our efforts on one battle at a time, surging en masse in a single direction. Knock them down one at a time, and we can prevail. It’s the reason this immigration bill has been the nearly singular focus of this site for the last two weeks. If we stay on one message at a time, we can win, but if we spread ourselves too thin, on too many fronts, and the left and the DC establishment class can overwhelm us.

As an example, this morning a number of well-meaning people seem consumed by what the Supreme Court has ruled in a number of cases. Here’s the question: Can we change it today? No. Can we do anything about it today? No, we can moan and groan, but there’s nothing to be gained by focusing on that. Another is the IRS scandal. What’s happening in that vein today? Nothing of note, and bluntly, with Congress under the control of insiders, not much will come of it now anyway. Skip it. Today, the Senate is taking up an amendment to the immigration bill, and the whole thing is a sham. We may or may not be able to stop it by voicing our concerns and displeasure with Senators, but at least there is some chance to swing things our way. If we become too distracted by extraneous matters about which we can do little or nothing at all today, we fall directly into the overload trap that has been so carefully laid out before us.

Even on Wednesday, with the despicable rulings of Anthony Kennedy and his four statist pals, we must not lose focus. The vote on the immigration bill is scheduled for Thursday, and we must again proclaim to senators our anger with the bill, and our rage with their participation in it. It’s a long shot, but even if we fail, we must turn so many as we are able because this bill will next move to the House, where our initial goal must be to prevent the bill or any variation of an immigration bill from being discussed in any form. This is because if the House passes any form of immigration bill, it will go to conference, and just like with Obama-care, the version that we will be saddled with will be the Senate bill, as amended, through and through.

Do not fall for the promises of Paul Ryan or John Boehner that this will be an improved bill. It will not be improved from your perspective, at any rate, however “improved” the DC establishment believes it to be. Thursday, come Hell or high water, you must call and fax your Senators, but even if the bill passes the Senate, you must be prepared to begin calling House members too, as the focus shifts from one chamber to the other. I don’t need to tell you how important stopping this bill is to the fate of the country, because you already know it.

A friend on Facebook was kind enough to provide a list of Senators with toll-free numbers you can call. I thank her kindly for providing this list:

Ayotte 888-995-1986

Baucus 888-995-2041

Begich 888-995-2055

Brown, Sherrod 888-995-2029

Burr 888-995-2097

Chambliss 888-995-1975

Coburn 888-995-1952

Cochran 888-995-1953

Corker 888-995-5271

Cornyn 888-995-2037

Donnelly 888-995-2034

Hagan 888-995-1994

Harkin 888-995-2023

Hatch 888-978-3148

Heitkamp 888-995-2048

Heller 888-995-5451

Hoeven 888-995-2047

Isakson 888-995-1978

Johanns 888-995-2038

Johnson 888-995-2052

Kirk 888-995-5459

Landrieu 888-995-2026

Manchin 888-995-1992

McCaskill 888-995-2019

McConnell 888-995-1997

Moran 888-995-6517

Murkowski 888-995-2057

Portman 888-995-2027

Pryor 888-995-2016

Rubio 888-995-5431

Sanders 888-978-3143

Stabenow 888-978-3092

Tester 888-995-2045

Thune 888-995-2051

Toomey 888-995-1993

We must focus our energies where we can make a difference. I know there are other important issues all around us, coming at us from every conceivable direction. We must prioritize our efforts, because otherwise, we become disorganized and off-message, or the message becomes lost altogether. Let us speak with a clear voice until the outcome of the immigration bill is resolved. Let us turn away briefly from other issues, particularly since there is little or nothing we can do about so many of them. We will not undo court decisions any time soon. We will not get just on Benghazi, the IRS targeting scandal, Fast and Furious, or any of the other scandals, but we can change the outcome of this bill. We can push hard enough to get their attention and keep it, and perhaps in so doing, avoid the brewing national disaster that is the Gang-of-Tr8ors bill.

On Wednesday evening, House Budget Committee Chairman and former vice-presidential candidate Paul Ryan(R-WI) made his case to Sean Hannity. Ryan lied to Hannity in front of a national audience, promising the House bill will be much tighter, but by now, conservatives and other common sense independents should recognize the misdirection in Ryan’s propaganda: It is not the House bill itself about which we should worry, but the conference bill that will be dominated by the Senate. That will be the final bill, whatever the House passes, which is why we must prevent the House from passing anythingon immigration, should the bill make it through the Senate. It’s time we conservatives make our displeasure known and while it may or may not get the desired result, we mustn’t fail to give it our best effort. This is for all the marbles.

Throughout this debate on immigration reform, what has become clear is that so very few in Washington DC actually have any intentions of solving the problems. As the Senate bill evinces, too many view the bill as an opportunity for “pork” while others view it as an opportunity to shift the polity of the country in their favor. We won’t get real reform that will answer our problems so long as this is the case, because politicians don’t really solve problems so much as they tend to patch them and push them down the road for future legislators to tackle. On the matter of immigration, there are a number of core problems that must be addressed as fundamental components to any alleged reform package. It needn’t be complex, and it needn’t be left in the hands of political appointees or politicians. We simply need a few honest laws that will be enforced uniformly and without exception. First, let’s inventory the broad problems we face, and let us then discover if they’re so hard to solve as the DC crowd claims.

The border is too porous so that no enforcement measure will be effective

There are too many powerful magnets attracting immigrants who may not be willing to “stand in line”

There exists no serious effort to contend with those who are already in the US illegally

There are too many bureaucratic hurdles for people who are following the legal immigration procedures

These are significant problems, and there’s no way they will be addressed by the current Gang-of-Eight bill. Even with the amendments that promise to improve the bill, it’s a completely disingenuous attempt to put one over on the American people, and it does nothing to address the four general points listed above. In Washington DC, it seems easy to make anything complex, because everybody sticks their fingers into every pie, trying to get a slice for themselves, while being able to claim to have been instrumental to the process. You and I don’t care about who gets credit, so long as things are fixed. Here are some broad notions on how to address the points listed above:

Border security is a joke presently. One can hardly expect to stem the tide of illegal immigrants if they’re pouring over our borders at an astonishing rate. The CBO estimated that the current Gang-of-Eight bill will only slow the rate of border-crossings by between 20-25%, and that’s generously assuming all of the promised provisions are enforced. In various pieces of legislation in the past, that has not been the case. Invariably, the “new tough measures” are enacted, but they aren’t enforced, and no benefit is derived from all the hoopla. Let us start from the basic premise that good fences make for great neighbors, and let us build a fence from end-to-end of our border. To claim that a country capable of putting men in a dune-buggy on the Moon won’t be able to erect a reliable barrier across a border frontier on Earth is frankly preposterous, and any who claim this should be embarrassed. A physical fence will not solve every problem, but it will serve as a line of demarcation between ours and theirs, and for many people, that is enough. Enforcing a border is much easier for Border Patrol agents when a physical barrier exists, because just as it makes things clear for outsiders looking in, it makes things fairly black-and-white for our security personnel looking out. Giving our border security personnel the tools to more easily spot penetrations along that border will help to reduce the number of people entering the country illegally in the first instance, making it a good deal easier to contend with the rest of the list.

We have too many things drawing people across our borders. Among them is our expansive and quite generous welfare state, while the other is employment. What we must do is to curtail the availability of the first to those illegally in the United States. While individual states can always do as they please, there is no reason not to attach Federal strings to our welfare-state, essentially telling states that if they wish to subsidize illegal immigrants, that’s a state matter, but that it may not be done with any funds from Federal coffers. Insofar as job opportunities, we want America to become even more vibrant for businesses and job-seekers, but not to the extent that it endangers our civilization, our standard of living, or our security. On this basis, we must make it somewhat less difficult to bring in guest workers, but we must raise the level of punishment for employers who hire illegals. To take away their last excuse, we need to fully field the E-Verify system that was mandated by Federal law over one-and-one-half decades ago. What we must also do is to ensure that guest workers don’t constitute a cost-savings over resident aliens or US citizens, so that we create a de facto “affirmative action” for guest workers that places our own citizens at a competitive disadvantage. Once such a system is in place, employers should have no more reason to claim they hadn’t known, and that they too were victims of some sort of identity fraud.

There is a great deal of talk about additional Border Patrol agents, and while there’s little doubt that we need to augment current personnel, I think we need to discuss ICE agents if we’re going to contend with the number of illegals, particular criminals, who are already in the United States. The Border Patrol doesn’t deal with illegal aliens who have penetrated much beyond the zone along the border, so that if you’re going to contend with the rest, you will be required to examine Immigrations and Customs Enforcement as the key area in which personnel must be augmented. Another significant issue faced by existing ICE agents is that they are frequently hand-cuffed by executive branch policies and executive orders undoubtedly calculated to make their jobs harder. This is where the real reform needs to come, because unless and until we’re willing to enforce all the laws already on the books, we have the de facto amnesty about which Marco Rubio and John McCain continue to blather incessantly. This is a highly politicized issue in large measure because we have a President (and many others) who has no interest in enforcing the laws, since it serves his political purposes to bring as many illegal aliens as possible to our shores in the hope of eventually adding some percentage of them to the voter rolls. There are many complicated subsidiary issues, like what to do about so-called “anchor babies,” and all of these other issues arising out of the fact that immigrants seldom remain here alone over the longer term, instead bringing in family and having children, oftentimes with people who are legally residing in the United States. These complications make this part of any reform more difficult, but they do not make it impossible and it shouldn’t prevent us from enforcing the laws of the land.

Insofar as legal immigration is concerned, we have a process that is often subverted to the geopolitical purposes of whomever is in power at the time. What should always be considered is whether issuing a visa to a particular immigrant is in the best interests of the United States and her people, and then establishing a firm set of rules under which this can occur. Except in the most extreme cases, I do not think political asylum should be used in the way it has been in recent years. Political asylum is the method by which the Tsarnaev brothers entered the United States, but it is clear that the elder Tamerlan was able to go back and forth to his homeland without much in the way of political impediment, in my view calling into question the legitimacy of the original request for asylum. If one can largely come and go as one pleases, it seems that perhaps a normal immigration application is more suitable. Instead, many people are permitted to seek asylum who may not really qualify by a strict understanding of the term.

There is no doubt that there is an extensive bureaucracy that acts as an encouragement to break our immigration laws when paired with other factors considered above. We should set a quota based on what we believe is a reasonable number of new Americans each year, and in so doing, we should provide a little excess room since some number will somehow invalidate or waive the process, perhaps by criminal entanglements, or other matters. Whatever that number is, we should permit one-fifty-second of that number to apply per week, with all their paperwork in good order, and fees paid, to begin the process of naturalization. Our system has become too disorderly, and too chaotic, in large measure because we haven’t secured the border, so that our legal immigration system spends much of its time dealing with issues pertaining to illegals. Another matter we should insist be addressed is an applicant’s suitability to be naturalized. Simply put, if a given applicant isn’t adding something to the country, there should be no reason to consider the application. We need to screen people applying to become legal immigrants with respect to their willingness to assimilate and contribute to our civilization. If they’re not willing or able, why should we let them come in?

I think immigration is an important driver to the continued improvement of our nation, but I hardly think that quantity should be permitted to overrun quality. There are too many good potential Americans in the world who wish to come here and who are willing to do so by legal means to let all comers into our country ahead of them. The world is bursting at the seams with people who would come here in good will, seeking freedom and opportunity who would happily join us in order to become Americans rather than simply arriving to reestablish their own cultures here. That is the point of assimilation, and it’s the reason we should take care in screening who should be permitted to enter our country.

Accomplishing these in legislation would be a tremendous boon to the people of planet Earth who look to America for its liberty and prosperity, but it would also constitute a great benefit to the American people, because it would ensure that our system works, securing the country against invasion or subversion, while helping to blend into our melting pot a vast number of people who come to these shores with the singular notion of becoming Americans. This would augment the exceptional character and nature of America, but after all, isn’t that what any serious immigration reform should provide? It’s time we tell our legislators that America is not up for grabs, but that its doors are still open as the land of the free and the home of the brave. In America, we’re always looking for a few good men and women, and there’s no reason whatever that we shouldn’t insist that our elected representatives comply fully with that demand, but they must do in a manner that balances the security interests of our nation. The current Gang-of-Tr8ors immigration bill merely offers to make things worse.

Sadly, there is no chance that we will see an immigration bill of the sort that will actually resolve the problems most Americans recognize in our current system, so that if the House passes a bill, even if it appears tougher than the Senate bill, in conference, where they must rectify the differences between the two versions, the Senate bill will prevail. For this reason, we simply must stop any immigration bill offered in this Congress.

Writing a Breitbart-exclusive op-ed, former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin sounded-off on Sunday evening over the ridiculous “Comprehensive Immigration Reform” bill pending in the US Senate, and in so doing, she stepped out to join other rare leaders on the conservative side of the debate. Just a few big-name conservatives have been vocal in their opposition to this bill, but this piece by Governor Palin seems to lay down a marker for others in the GOP to consider. The conservatives who have been doggedly fighting against this immigration bill for all its mortal failings have been heartened to see the freshman Senator from Texas, Ted Cruz, stepping up to fight against a terribly abusive and nonsensical bill. With this most direct entry into the fray, Gov. Palin has made clear her continuing ability to lead from the outside, and it is most invigorating to grass roots conservatives that she has chosen this dark moment to speak up and do battle with the DC-Beltway, permanent political class that is trying to foist this bill upon the American people.

As is her habit, she wasted no time with pleasantries and minced no words:

“Just like they did with Obamacare, some in Congress intend to “Pelosi” the amnesty bill. They’ll pass it in order to find out what’s in it. And just like the unpopular, unaffordable Obamacare disaster, this pandering, rewarding-the-rule-breakers, still-no-border-security, special-interests-ridden, 24-lb disaster of a bill is not supported by informed Americans.”

This opening salvo sets the tone for the entire piece, because while like so many of us, Gov. Palin believes in legal immigration because she understands that we are a nation built by immigrants who faced tremendous challenges to conquer a continent, she also reveres the rule of law and understands quite well what happens when government becomes an agent of anarchy. In that vein, she wrote:

“I am an ardent supporter of legal immigration. I’m proud that our country is so desirable that it has been a melting pot making a diverse people united as the most exceptional nation on earth for over two centuries. But I join every American with an ounce of common sense insisting that any discussion about immigration must center on a secure border. The amnesty bill before the Senate is completely toothless on border security. “

Lamenting the many holes in the legislation now pending, including the amendments offered thus far, she took the time to single-out one of the bill’s key proponents, Senator Marco Rubio(R-FL). Earlier Sunday, she posted on Facebook and via Twitter an article revealing Rubio’s hypocrisy on the subject, and it is here that one gets a sense that the “Mama Grizzly” is just getting warmed-up:

“It’s beyond disingenuous for anyone to claim that a vote for this bill is a vote for security. Look no further than the fact that Senator Rubio and amnesty supporters nixed Senator Thune’s amendment that required the feds to finally build part of a needed security fence before moving forward on the status of illegal immigrants who’ve already broken the law to be here. And if shooting down the border fence wasn’t proof enough, they blew another chance by killing Senator Paul’s “Trust But Verify” amendment which required the completion of a fence in five years and required Congress to vote on whether the border is actually secure before furthering any immigration measures. And then they blew it yet again, nixing Senator Cornyn’s “Results” amendment, which also required border enforcement standards. Now the Senate’s pro-amnesty crowd is offering a fig leaf to security via the Corker-Hoeven Amendment, but this is really nothing more than empty promises. It’s amnesty right now and border security… eh, well, someday.”

This is more than fair in the sense of a well-deserved rebuke, and it also illustrates some of the games being played by the DC crowd. There really wasn’t any reason for Republicans to vote for cloture, permitting this bill to come to the floor for debate in the first place, but now that we’re stuck with this process, we ought to know who is doing what. She takes careful measure of the bill, stating simply:

“There are plenty of other commonsense solutions, but this bill isn’t about fixing problems; it’s about amnesty at all costs.”

In this allegation, there can be no doubt. So intent are these Senators to pass amnesty “at all costs” that they are willing to wheel and deal, but you should know as I have reported and she has identified again, part of this bill is nothing but a load of pork to be fed to the permanent political class who will trade their votes for goodies, including the bipartisan cabal of Senators from her own state:

“Just like they did for Obamacare, the permanent political class is sugaring this bill with one goody after another to entice certain senators to vote for it. Look no further than page 983 of the bill, which contains a special visa exemption for foreign seafood workers in the 49th state despite huge unemployment numbers in the American workforce. This is obviously a hidden favor designed to buy the votes of Alaska Senators Murkowski and Begich.”

One thing among many to be admired about Sarah Palin is her insistence on pointing out the con-artists in her own party. Few politicians will do such a thing, but she’s been doing so since she was the mayor of Wasilla, AK. It’s heartening to see her continue this fight, even as one realizes with sadness the fact that when it comes to corruption, there’s no end in sight, but Gov. Palin offers us many reasons for hope, and she implores the grass-roots to rise up against this horrible bill:

“It’s time for concerned Americans to flood our legislators’ phone lines with the input they need to hear from We the People. Join the mama grizzlies who are rearing up tirelessly to swat away false claims that amnesty is a good thing. Michelle Malkin rightly said the issue is not secure the border first, it’s “secure the border. Period.””

Amen. In the end, she reminds politicians of that which we must not forget, win, lose or draw on this particular issue:

Barack Obama promised fundamental transformation, and with the help of his own party, as well as a lengthy list of traitorous, sell-out vermin in the Republican Party, he’s having an easy time of it. The Corker-Hoeven amendment to be voted on Monday will not have been read by anyone as the vote is tallied, but it constitutes a re-write of the bill almost in its entirety. The details of the original bill and the amendment constitute more than merely awful legislation, to the extent all the provisions are known, and it is the intention of Barack Obama, Harry Reid, Mitch McConnell along with a legion of co-conspirators in both parties to put this bill over on the American people before they can know what has hit them. If this bill passes in any form, it will have been the final legal nail in the coffin of our Republic. Swept aside will have been every possible obstacle to the overthrow of constitutional government in the United States of America, by virtually any interested foreign power. This is only possible because a large segment of the GOP has decided to be on the side they believe will win. It’s that simple: America will be ruined with Republican assistance.

There is a common temptation to think of the immigration reform bill as pertaining to people who have crept into our country from Mexico and points South. I would ask my fellow Americans to reconsider this assumption carefully, because there is no language in this law that limits the benefits of this law to only those hailing from Mexico. This law would pertain to Mohammed Atta, or other terrorist elements who overstayed visas. This law will effectively throw our nation wide-open to a world full of people not all of whom love us or will come here merely for economic opportunities. This bill will create a new class of residents who may lawfully remain in the United States despite having violated our laws. There will be no fear of deportation. There will be no further purpose for ICE agents, except as tax collectors. This is a statist pipe-dream come true.

Barack Obama is leading the overthrow of our form of government, our culture, and our economy while people wonder whether Nik Wallenda will survive his walk on a cable spanning the Grand Canyon. Worst of all, the party elected to stand in opposition to all of this is lending an assist, while far too many of the American people are oblivious to what is being done. For me, this is the most troubling aspect, because rather than zealously guarding their liberties and relative prosperity, a huge swath of America won’t know what will have been done until there is virtually no peaceable means remaining by which to reverse it.

I do not mean here to whine, because I have a small but loyal readership, and most who read these postings will appreciate them, but the fact that it is such a small sliver(relatively) of the overall population bothers me, not because they don’t read this site, but because so many don’t read anything of consequence to the future of our country. I am mortified when I consider that some times, my biggest-drawing posts on a given day are things I wrote weeks or months, and in a few cases more than a year before that only then find their way into a bit of attention from a wider audience. Short of stripping naked and running down the street ablaze(and nobody wants to see that,) I don’t know what more we conservatives can do to pierce the veil of indifference that seems to have settled over this country.

Monday is the day on which we need to raise unholy Hell over this immigration bill. I have my call list, and I’m starting early. The sun will scarcely be up by the time I begin calling, and this is important enough that I intend to set aside several hours for this task. These politicians don’t view our lives as important, because in their view, we’re simply cogs in a machine from which they profit tremendously. It’s time to get a little fury in our voices and let them know that they’re not so special that we can’t send them home. Sure, they’re reorganizing this country into a statist, third-world slave-pit, but nowhere is it written that we must accept it, or even go along quietly. It’s time to make some noise, for the love of all you cherish. They may overthrow us yet, but we mustn’t make it easy for them. Our only choice is to fight or to fold, and for all I hold dear, I will fight.

There’s no disguising the fact any longer. A number of Republicans have aligned with the left on this immigration bill in order to secure goodies for their home states, or in order to gain what they have been led to believe will be an electoral advantage(that will never materialize.) Clowns, con-men, and suckers, this list of 18 Republicans went over to the dark side insofar as this writer is concerned, and there will be no retrieving them. Without their votes to bring the immigration bill to the floor, it would still be languishing on the table, but they enabled this monstrosity to go forward. Whatever amendments they now claim to support, you should know that these Republican members of the United States Senate intend to get this bill through, and that the immigration bill will be nothing but a giant drain on the American people, their future, their jobs, and their standard-of-living, never mind what it will do to the culture and to the American polity. This bill was conceived by leftists, and it will be carried into execution with the help of Republicans if they should prevail. I just wanted you to get a look at these people, and to know how to contact them on Facebook. I’ve listed them for you in a previous post, but I want you to know that these people have chosen to go against the will of the vast majority of Americans, and they will have been our nation’s downfall:

In the last several years, conservatives have grown accustomed to the feeling of a knife in their backs as the Republican Party’s elites have seemed intent upon subversion of the party’s ideals. Pledges and campaign promises are seldom honored, and elected Republicans have seemed to simply go to Washington DC with their own agendas that do not comport or comply with all of the things they had said. Part of its cause is surely the fact that many are simply lying, power-hungry politicians who lied for conservative support, but with the turn of events over the current immigration reform bill, it seems as though there must be something else. The immigration reform bill being debated in the Senate is a writ of suicide not merely for the Republican Party, but for the whole country, and yet most Republican Senators seem unfazed. The bill isn’t merely bad. It’s not a mistake. It’s a monstrous attempt to reorganize the country by redefining what it means to be an American and how one goes about qualifying for that privilege. These Republican Senators aren’t merely abandoning the party platform, but are instead announcing to the world their intention to betray America.

Radio talk show host Dana Loesch has been doing fantastic work via Twitter, laying out how provisions of this bill will absolutely destroy any checks on illegal immigration by effectively legalizing everything. Ted Cruz has also tweeted a number of troubling details, and this includes particularly the despicable, wolf-in-sheeps-clothing Corker-Hoeven Amendment. You may remember their complaints about how visa over-stays are one of the primary methods of entry for illegal immigrants, apart from our porous Southern border, but under this ridiculous legislation, they cure that problem by permitting people who over-stay their visas to restart the process without penalty and without leaving the country. As if that’s not bad enough, they’re actually creating an office for civil rights to advise illegal immigrants under the law. Can I get an office of tax non-compliance for the day I finally decide to stop paying my tax burden? What’s next? Strip maps to the best penetration points in Southwest Texas?

Worst of all, they talk about doubling the number of border agents, but that’s only a fraction of the problem. What is actually needed is a quadrupling of ICE agents working in the interior of the country with the authority to apprehend and deport illegals. Stopping them at the border would be great, but where we need real help is finding them once they’re well inside our country and booting them the Hell out! Of course, all of this relies on the diligence of the Obama administration along with subsequent administrations in enforcing the law. In other words, if t his bill passes the Senate, and Boehner rigs any immigration bill to pass the House, we’ll be screwed [again] when the conference bill comes back for final passage.

These people have decided to foist this on us one way or the other, so that they can pay off their corporate cronies, who want cheaper labor by the millions. If you haven’t called your Senators, I need to ask you why you’re delaying. They’re voting on the Corker-Hoeven amendment on Monday morning, so as to offer cover to those who vote for it now in the Senate, and those who will vote for the conference bill in both Houses. My response is this, and it’s simple, it doesn’t mean much, but it’s the stance I’m taking: I will consider each and every member of either House who supports this abomination as guilty of treason against the United States, its constitution, and the American people.

When the “Gang-of-Tr8ors” brought this amnesty bill to the floor, they already had patsies lined up to support it, including Corker and Hoeven who they will use to “amend” the bill, making it even more obnoxious. Readers have asked in comments, or in emails, and on Facebook too why it is that there are so many Republicans who would sell out their country, and while the reasons probably vary somewhat from member to member, the fact is that there are only two reasons these worthless scum-bags would act to destroy their party and their country in one fell swoop: The money is substantial and/or they’re really liberal Democrats of the Arlen Specter inclination anyway.

Think about it, if you will: These people are building a one-party country and government, and the party isn’t “Republican,” and surely not conservative. Even though roughly 40% of the country claims to be conservative, these people have figured out the formula for winning and making the wishes of that 40% of the population irrelevant, and even to make them a smaller group as a share of the population, which they will increase by something on the order of 22-35 million by virtue of this immigration bill, at least two-thirds of whom will vote Democrat reliably in election after election. One could perhaps understand an old fool like John McCain who probably won’t run for re-election in 2016, but for the other guys, younger Senators like Rubio and Flake, there must be some other motive. If it’s not corporate money[alone], what could it be? They either have interests we do not know, or they’re positioning themselves to become Democrats.

Compared to these guys, Benedict Arnold was a saint. He conspired to give away the fort at West Point to the British for a commission. These bastards are giving away the entire country. Writing of Benedict Arnold after his treason was exposed, Benjamin Franklin said:

“Judas sold only one man, Arnold three millions.”

If this is so, then what must we say of our Republican sell-outs? How many millions do these people now betray? How many Americans will now pay ad infinitum for the designs of these men and women? Examining this bill, and all of the provisions that do absolutely nothing to stem the tide of future illegal immigrants except to legalize their actions, one cannot conclude that these Senators have the best interests of the nation at heart, and claims that they’re acting from some sort of compassionate motive simply doesn’t square with the misery they are inflicting on the nation at large. To Hell with them. I’ll be damned if I let the days pass without bombarding them with my view on their treason. The only good news is that they’re under fire, and they know it. We’re having an effect, and none should despair yet. The fight goes on until the DC class manages to park this bill on Obama’s desk, and I’m not giving away my country without a fight.

One might believe that an editor at the Wall Street Journal should have the first clue regarding the subject on which he’s writing, but I suppose it’s too much to ask that publication to take the time to restrain such claptrap. Outlets rabidly favoring open borders don’t seem to bother with such considerations while there’s propaganda to be spread. In an article that should make its author a laughing stock, Daniel Henninger makes an easily-refuted claim that’s not even an original proposition: He thinks a fence on our border would resemble the wall that had separated East and West, from its ground-breaking in 1961 until its demolition begun in 1989 by East Germans who refused to be caged any longer. It’s fair to say that I must have an advantage over Henninger, because I actually saw the wall from both sides as a young man. Apart from the fact that both are physical barriers, they are entirely different in character and purpose. He thinks a border fence would constitute a national embarrassment, but I choose to reserve that description for his obvious lack of contextual reckoning.

Serving in the Army as I did in the 1980s, particularly in Germany for the final half-decade of the wall’s existence, I had more than a few occasions to see the wall and fences, and in one instance, pass beyond it on an official tour to see it from the East. That tour, and the other instances told me all I needed to know about evil in the world: It is real, it is unyielding, and it throttles the lives of people who must live under its oppressive bonds. We soldiers who embarked on that tour in 1986 crossed through Checkpoint Charlie in Berlin, in our Class A uniforms and under official orders in a bus. We had an official tour-guide, a propagandist of the Soviet Bloc’s military, who directed our attention to the state-sanctioned “highlights” along our tour’s course. We hadn’t been in East German territory long when somebody whispered “look back.” A number of us swiveled our heads around, gawking at what laid behind us. From the West, things had appeared relatively neat and orderly, but as we moved Eastward into that sector of Berlin, looking West, we could see the shell damage that was still quite evident on the East faces of buildings and bridges that had not been repaired since WWII. In fact, most of what could be seen from the West side of the wall was a facade patched together to conceal the truly deplorable conditions in the East. Where West Berlin’s buildings had been restored, apart from a few war-damaged landmarks intentionally left as memorials with their battle scars, East Berlin was like a row of dilapidated headstones decorated in front with artificial flowers.

They stopped us at an open-air market to let us get off the bus to “shop.” If you have seen the shelves at a grocery store in the hours just before a hurricane is expected to sweep through, you will be stunned to know that such are bountiful compared to what we saw. We were shown only the very best they had to offer. It would have been laughable had it not been for the grim realization that this “market” was better than what 95% of East Berlin residents would ever see under Soviet rule, devoid of almost anything of value apart from some shoddily-made trinkets, interesting only to souvenir buyers. Of course, this was the official “show tour,” but even on other tours along the border frontier, the horrors of the meaning of the wall had never been clearer in my twenty-something mind. Machine-gun nests laid out and manned for the purposes of preventing their own citizens from escaping were the most cruelly dehumanizing thing I had seen to date.

Daniel Henninger pretends that a security fence along our Southern border would be impractical or even impossible, but also that it would serve as a similar blight on the landscape of humanity. Does he feel the same way about the fence around his back yard, or about the fence around the White House? You see, the proper analogy to the Berlin wall wouldn’t be if we construct a fence along the border, but instead if the Mexican government were to erect one to hold their own people in at gunpoint. A border fence constructed by the US along its Southern border serves its own citizens by keeping others out. The wall that separated the East from the West was intended solely to keep the Soviet Bloc’s people in bondage. Hundreds were murdered or maimed while trying to escape. As a Texas resident of more than two decades, I have yet to read a single report of Americans being shot in the back by the US border patrol while attempting to break out of the US into that bastion of harmonious prosperity named “Mexico.”

Anybody who cannot see the moral distinction between the two, and thus the philosophically opposite motives between their construction ought not to write for a major publication. Never mind what we can learn from the fact that such a publication actually printed it, the real national embarrassment is that the Wall Street Journal employs a writer so thoroughly removed from reality. I feel pity for Mr. Henninger, so hopelessly bound by his open-borders dogma that he feels compelled to write propaganda on behalf of a bankrupt idea. It’s only possible for such an argument to carry weight among an ignorant populace, but thanks to the passage of time, and indeed to people like Mr. Henninger, there is greater opportunity for such farcical notions to take hold. There is no real comparison between the two structures, either in intent or moral underpinnings, and it is a despicable day indeed when the Wall Street Journal is reduced to a slack-jawed propagandist so intent on political victory that it is now willing to lie both about the past and the future. The alleged guardians of the Republic that comprise the fourth estate aren’t so much protecting the truth as shoveling dirt – or something – in its face.

I saw the Berlin Wall. I saw the whole miserable stretch of it complete with towers and machine-gun nests. I saw what they did to East Germans and Czechs who tried to flee. Daniel Henninger, had he any scruples, would be mortally ashamed of himself.

Paul Ryan talked with Laura Ingraham about a possible, future labor shortage if the amnesty bill is not passed. Right this moment, millions of American citizens are un/under-employed, and this guy is worried about a future labor shortage? I guess after being portrayed by Democrats as throwing Granny off the cliff, he’s take up the real work of pitching US citizens and legal residents over the cliff in earnest. This ridiculous man, who had been the Republican Vice Presidential Candidate only seven months ago actually believes this is the answer. What he’s not willing to say, at least not directly, is that he wants illegals legalized so they can be new slaves and beneficiaries in the growing government welfare-state. Listen to this pandering RINO disgorge his platitudes and clichés:

[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OcZn1eAVQr8]

Ladies and gentlemen, we must kill the bill, and we must kill it in the Senate. Rep. Steve King(R-IA) along with Louie Gohmert(R-TX) appeared on Hannity Thursday to explain why we must kill the immigration reform bill in the Senate: If this makes it to the House, Boehner will take up the bill, and it may be extensively amended before passage, but the bill will need to go to conference first because the two bills will be substantially different. After the conference bill is finalized, there will be a vote for final passage, and it is at that time that Boehner and the GOP leadership in the House will screw us with a vast majority of Democrats and a few hands-full of RINOs voting for the conference version. Then we’ll have our amnesty, and Boehner will appear as though his hands are clean. Here’s Gohmert and King on Hannity:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmc4Uv14g7I]

The two Congressmen reiterated my point of yesterday: There should be no discussion of amnesty/legalization of any kind until the border is secured and enforcement has been significant and effective for a number of years.

We must prevent this scam from going through. I have my own doubts about whether the Senate version of the bill if amended with security-oriented provisions will stand up, because the amendments being added introduce new appropriations, but the Constitution requires that any new appropriations or taxation must originate in the House. We already know that these weasels pay attention to the constitution if and when it suits them, so I would not be surprised to see some game-playing on technical grounds if that’s what is needed to stop enforcement of security provisions.

Keep the pressure on them! I checked by a few of the Republican “Gang-of-Eight” Facebook pages, and noted that they are getting hammered by patriotic Americans everywhere. Let’s remind them whose country this is, and what their duty to the American people is supposed to entail.

Don’t forget to go by and sign the border security petition from Senator Ted Cruz(R-TX)Petition Here

This morning, Senator John McCain(RINO-AZ) made an impassioned speech on behalf of the Amnesty bill. Senator McCain is catching Hell as you continue to hammer him and his “gang-of-eight” cohorts. He still wants this bill in the worst way, but this clip is evidence of the effect you’re having:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xB7VOWAo3DI]

Sorry Johnny, we want our country. There won’t be any amnesty for you, either…

Ladies and gentlemen, the time has come to end this circus. Barack, Harry, and John have sent in the “Gang-of-Eight Clowns,” and when you pushed back, they came across with this tepid, phony amendment that two more Senators carried through the door, even though, as Mark Levin reported on Thursday evening, it had been drafted with the approval and oversight of the “Gang-of-Eight.” Let us not extenuate the matter by pretending any of these charlatans had made their best effort, and let us not pretend that the bill was ever intended to give us the border security we deserve. No, this entire thousand-page bill is another maneuver aimed at looting the American tax-payer because it’s a whole lot easier than old-fashioned methods of theft. With the help of broadcast and print media, they are working together with social media giants and search engine giants to tamp down, hide, and otherwise befuddle any dissent, in order for its numerous opponents to become discouraged and give up in bewilderment. They’re letting their voice-mail remain full, and they’re leaving their in-boxes remain stuffed because they wish to give you the impression that they’re not really getting any sort of push-back, because the last thing they want is the building of momentum against this bill. Today is Friday, and they fully expect that you will begin to tune out for the weekend. They hope this will be enough to quash any momentum against their bill and rush it through the Senate so that you won’t even see it coming. Even now, Breitbart is reporting that Texas Senator Ted Cruz is starting a national petition to kill the bill.

I’ve got news for you: The Republicans and not a few Democrats are beginning to waver, which is precisely why you must build the pressure now, more than ever, until the bill is finally killed. Although they’re disguising it, the momentum is running your way. The media lied even on radio about how many showed up for the rally on Wednesday in Washington, referring to the number as “hundreds” when it was actually many thousands. This is the game you’re up against, and the only way they’ll ever let you know that you might be winning is by their eventual capitulation. When Harry Reid is forced to table the bill, that’s when you’ll know you have won, but not before.

This Corker Amendment was a pre-planned strategy to mollify you into believing you had forced them to improve the bill, but because you haven’t fallen for it, and since you saw straight through it as the transparent play-acting too common to Washington DC that it is, they’re trying to rustle up the numbers to push it through anyway. The situation looks grave, because that’s how they need it to appear for you, but it’s only threatening to the extent that you relent and let it go. This once, you must be dogged. You must be unrelenting. You must be forceful in your denouncements of the bill and all who support it. You must flood their Facebook pages, their Twitter feeds, and every other avenue of reaching them, because that is what they’re hoping to stymie. Marco Rubio’s Facebook page is awash in criticism, and for every one or two kind remarks or comments made by obvious shills, there are dozens condemning the Senator and explaining their disappointment and horror at what he has done with the office he was given in 2010. Some were threatening to primary him, and wondered if he’d pull a Charlie Crist in order to recapture his seat. Yes, for some of them, it has gotten as bad as that, but if we are to succeed, we must spread this affect from one end of Capitol Hill to the other, lest some get the idea that they may be immune.

This is the time when it will seem thankless and pointless. That’s what they desperately need us to believe. All the calls and faxes; letters and emails; tweets and the Facebook posts will seem as though despite their numbers, they’re having no effect. The proponents of this bill need you to believe that. They’ll hide the numbers. They will do all they can so that you won’t work to stop them, but at long last, and once more, I urge you to remember: This is your country. This is your sovereignty. This is the future of your children they’re throwing away. This is the time and this is our moment when we must raise our voice against them like they’ve never heard them before.

What will you say later if you fail to engage and come to find it had been much closer than they had led you to believe, but believing they had it in the bag, you relented? We must turn it around on them: We will permit them to consider amnesty at some future date, in four years or so, if they spend the next four years or so making a serious, concerted effort at enforcing the border now and getting this mess under control. When they lament the fact that we have now “de facto amnesty,” be sure to remind them that to the degree this is true, it is only because they have failed to uphold their oaths and to compel the executive by every legislative lever available to carry into execution all the laws of the land. If there is “de facto amnesty,” it is only because they have been dishonest, or slothful in carrying out their duties.

“De facto amnesty,” my ass… This collection of ne’er-do-wells could secure our borders any time they damned-well please, if they actually wanted to do it. It’s time we demand it: Kill the bill and secure the border, now!

On Wednesday evening, Marco Rubio(R-FL) appeared on Sean Hannity’s show on Fox News to reassure viewers that there would be a vast improvement in border security through an amendment he expected to be introduced by Thursday morning. Ladies and gentlemen, the fact that Rubio made this move indicates just how bad it’s gotten for him, but it’s also a part of the snow-job. Rubio knew that he would take heat over his involvement with this bill, but he knew it would need to be amended to move or face outrage across the nation. The problem is that whatever is in this promised amendment will amount to token measures that will rely upon the executive branch and Barack Obama for their enforcement. I have a simple counter-proposal for the Senator if he’s got the guts, and he’s sincere about wanting security at the border first: Scrap the bill as it exists and just implement the security portion now. If over the next four years, the security measures are diligently enforced, it should be no problem to come back to the American people to argue: “See, we’ve done as we’ve promised.” Otherwise, we have every reason to believe this is yet another snow-job, just like it’s been every time before.

No sir, we need the security first, and independent of any other measures. No more triggers, no phony commissions, and no more schemes to trick us into going along. In 2016, Senator Rubio should be up for re-election, so that if he delivers on four years’ worth of promised improvements in security, deportation, E-Verify, physical fencing, electronic monitoring and surveillance, along with a massive increase in the number of agents, it should be no problem to demonstrate a success.

The obstinate truth of this issue is that we no longer trust you, Senator Rubio, nor do we trust most of your colleagues, and we have every reason to suspect that no matter what security provisions your promised amendment may put into place, this President and his rogue Attorney General will do everything possible to confound the law, confound the security measures, and otherwise undercut the promises you have made and seem to be making anew.

It’s a promise versus performance problem, and we simply don’t trust Marco Rubio, or much less anyone else in Washington DC to get this even approximately right. The only viable solution after decades of intransigence on the part of legislators and Presidents is to deliver the security first. If legislators will pass an enforcement law putting teeth into the measures we have previously passed, adding new measures to augment the effort, come some day four years hence, when Senator Rubio will have been re-elected on the strength of promises kept, I assure you that the American people will be far more amenable to considering reform of the immigration system. This means passing a mechanism for enforcement into law, and doing so in a way that instructs the executive branch on its duties with respect to carrying out the law.

News laws can be passed at any time. It is conceivable that new enforcement mechanisms will be such a thorough success that we will be ready to consider immigration system reforms sooner than four years, but we must first see a good faith effort that does not rely on a bunch of triggers and other trick language to move automatically from an enforcement phase to an immigration reform phase, because each and every one of the promises of previous Congresses have been violated and abandoned, but worse, we now have a President who has no problem ignoring the law altogether.

This is your put-up or shut-up moment. This is your chance to build a legacy and good will for election cycles to come, and if you can meet this challenge, the American people will support you, but this must not be passed under the quid pro quo assumptions required in the current iteration of the legislation. There must be no “this for that,” but instead merely a “this” in the present to be followed up at some future date with a “that.” Do this, and you will have my support if you can carry it into execution. Do this not, and I will oppose and dog you every step of the way, and with you every last legislator who follows along.

This is our country, and its security and sovereignty are not bargaining chips in their legislative tool kit. They have sworn an oath, and it’s damn well time they carry it out first, and without conditions or further considerations from the American people who have been entirely too patient on this matter. That patience has finally worn too thin, so that if legislators think they can present a bill that was a throw-away from the outset, tinker with it around the edges with loose legislative language, repackaging it at this late date for a quick second sales pitch, they are wholly mistaken to believe that approach will work this time.

To Senator Rubio and all the other purveyors of “comprehensive immigration reform:” Put up or shut up. Security now – Immigration reform later. That’s the only deal you will get, and it’s the best Congress and the Obama administration have any plausible right to expect.

I readily admit that what makes me less-inclined to be a part of the Republican Party is that all too often, I believe that institution abandons reason for the sake of politics. Too often, I find that these avenues of departure occur on issues in which it seems to me that the party is more interested in getting votes by superficial causes than by doing the harder worker of reasoning with would-be supporters. I tend to have some very libertarian ideas in such fields as economics, in which I believe the best answer is remove government as an influence, for better or worse(as it’s almost always the latter,) from every economic consideration. In this context, it’s easy to understand why I have some significant sympathies with libertarians, because I believe the freedom to choose in a market, rightly or wrongly, and the opportunity from those choices to profit or lose, is as fundamental to human progress as any virtue that has ever existed in human history. Some libertarians over-extend this argument and the best example of this over-extended idea is the fixation some libertarians seem to have with easy immigration and open borders, ignoring all the problems accompanying such ideas, to the extent that the contradictions explicit in their proposals seem to be invisible to them.

I believe in rational self-interest, a notion perhaps best explained by author and philosopher Ayn Rand, and I am hardly alone in my favorable impression of her ideas on that subject. Many libertarians and advocates of reason will reference her works on the subject because of the power of her logic to persuade. The problem arises, however, when some advocates of a free market go so far afield in their wide-eyed insistence that markets and people be perfectly free that they abandon reason in its material implementations. Immigration is one such issue, and to shed some light on where I think the disconnect occurs or how the problems become invisible to advocates, I’d prefer to address this in the sense of a study in the rational self-interest with which libertarians are generally concerned. I noted today that one writer who I read from time to time had decided to attack Sarah Palin, and specifically, among all the more laughable claims, he seemed most displeased with her stance on the immigration reform bill. Wrote Reason Editor Nick Gillespie over at TheDailyBeast:

Far be it from me to let Mr. Gillespie in on a guarded state secret, but “a pandering, rewarding-the-rule-breakers, still-no-border-security, special-interest-written amnesty bill” is the most precisely accurate description of the “Comprehensive Immigration Reform” or “Gang-of-Eight” bill I’ve yet read. This legislation is being pushed as the way to save the Republican Party, by ostensibly enticing more Hispanics to vote for GOP candidates, therefore meeting the precise definition of pandering. The bill ultimately lets people cut in line, despite having broken our laws. It fails to secure the borders as has been promised since 1986. It was created in a devil’s brew of deal-making between the unions and the Chamber of Commerce, for Heaven’s sake. In all respects, it is precisely as Gov. Palin described it. In today’s article, Gillespie goes on to take numerous cheap-shots at Palin, but given the issues of the day, and Gillespie’s distinctly libertarian views, particularly on immigration, I couldn’t resist the opportunity to address this issue. Gillespie is a forceful advocate for libertarian positions, and is particularly adamant in his views on open borders and liberal immigration policies. His article today seemed as though it needed an FEC disclaimer because it read like a campaign advertisement for Rand Paul and also Justin Amash, two Republicans with decidedly libertarian viewpoints.

Nick Gillespie would tell you that he is an opponent of collectivism. I too am an opponent of collectivism, but as Rand properly noted, I recognize that there are certain facets of human interaction for which government is the only rational answer. We know governments simply cannot allocate wealth as efficiently or as honestly as a free market, so that government’s sole role in the field ought to be reduced to that of a referee. That’s why we have a court system complete with all the possible avenues of civil redress and relief. We know also that the notion of a collectivized defense is probably the only rational way in which to protect one’s nation against foreign attackers, since we likewise recognize that while we may mean no harm to others, we can’t count on that as a driving motive behind the policies of other nations. In short, we know that there are legitimate roles for government, but that much as our founders would have explained it, those roles are definite and limited.

After all, a nation is but a collection of persons, bound by the geographic description of a region, and each of those persons is entitled to a natural right of self-defense, and property, along with a general pursuit of happiness. Together, they have an aggregated right to those same ends, so that it is only natural that they should decide the boundaries of their nation, and how they will be enforced. A nation-state is exclusionary by design, the very object of its creation as an institution being the limiting of who may enter, and under what conditions. National boundaries exist to create a delineation, so that a person may know that as he moves from one nation to the next, one is bound by the laws of the jurisdiction to which one has entered.

Libertarians will scream at me here, arguing that every person on the planet ought to be as free(or more so) than had been the residents of the United States. While I agree in principle, what I know about the world tells me this can never be the case. There are no Utopias to be found here. Not even Rand’s Galt’s Gulch can be made on Earth, because there will always and forever be people who choose the shortcuts, the paths of least resistance, and the desire to dominate their fellow man. We may not like it, and we may wish we could create some sort of Heaven on Earth, but it will never be, whether proposed by the statists or the libertarians.

This being the case, any organization of people uniting to build a country and creating its laws to guarantee the rights of its residents ought to carefully guard that nation. It must be guarded against invasion and attack, and its quality of life must be guarded to the benefit of those paying for all of this protection. The libertarian mindset is that we must extend our liberties to all humanity through a permissive immigration policy while improving free trade across borders. In this way, they surmise, it is possible to elevate many people’s lives, both immigrant and native-born, simply permitting them to come and partake of the same liberty current residents enjoy. Lovely though it may sound, however, this is at odds with all human experience on the subject, and offers no real hope to those actually deserving to enter.

The object of any nation’s immigration policy ought to be simple, and it’s a construct much like the justification for a national defense: How does a given immigrant’s entry comport with the collectivized interests of the nation at large? If this is the standard, and it should be, then we would permit many more immigrants from Asia and Europe, and many fewer from Central and South America. You see, it is right to ask of immigrants: “What do you bring to the party?” The sort of indiscriminate open-borders notions held by many libertarians would destroy the very thing they had hoped to extend to millions more humans. It is this central contradiction, this hole in their reasoning, that damns their ideas on the subject as the child-like tantrums of a dream made of rainbows and unicorns interrupted by the intercession of reality. There’s nothing wrong with such dreams, but once one wakes up to confront reality, it’s time to reconsider.

How much evidence does one need to demonstrate that not every person entering the United States shares in those visions of Utopia? If a nation does not control its borders, how is it to discern among the many entrees, or who among them will contribute to or detract from the quality and standard of living in the country? I live in Texas, a border state that has seen its share of tragedies born of those who made it into this country without proper vetting. Scarcely a day goes by without a story in the press about some illegal immigrant who has inflicted untold suffering on our residents. The clear point in all of this is that we have every manner of rational self-interest as individuals, but also aggregated as a nation, to ensure to the degree possible that those who come to our shores will be contributors rather than burdens.

I well understand the trials and tribulations of legal immigrants, inasmuch as my own spouse is an immigrant to this nation. She has worked continuously for twenty-two of the twenty-three years she has resided in the US, making her a net taxpayer by a wide margin and providing little in the way of burdens upon the public, by way of her use of the roads and bridges of our state for which she is also taxed. She creates economic activity by virtue of the expenditures of her earnings, and in point of fact, has worked two jobs for most of the last decade. In addition, she works the farm, and has raised a child who is well on her way to likewise becoming a productive American. I understand immigration, because particularly, my mother’s family was one of poor, hard-working immigrants who toiled endlessly to scratch their way to something approximating economic stability. Some immigrants come here precisely for the economic opportunities, with a firmly-held work ethic and a love for their adoptive country, but this does not nearly describe all of them.

Sadly, in too many cases, immigrants who come to the United States not to partake of our liberty and our relative prosperity by contributing to it, but instead by finding ways to skim and scam from it. How many now come expressly for welfare benefits? How many come to engage in drug or human trafficking? How many come solely for the attractions of a society ripe for the pillaging? Surely, the latter do not wish to “come out of the shadows” in any event. When my wife filed all of her immigration paperwork, one of the things I had to file was a statement of financial responsibility, stating that I would not permit her to become a burden on the government. I always wondered how it could be that so many recent immigrants could apply for and gain access to welfare-state benefits with laws on the books that would seem, on the surface, to make that illegal. The answer should have been obvious to me: Children.

The children born to immigrants are citizens under current US law. This citizenship entitles them to all the benefits available as part of our welfare systems. Health-care, food-stamps, and all the other provisions of the welfare-state are available to the American-born children of recent immigrants. Are we going to provide Section 8 housing for the children but force Ma and Pa to live on the streets? Are we going to provide food assistance to the kids while insisting that Mom and Dad do without? Simply put, if the benefits sufficient to feed a number of children are dispensed on the basis of their needs alone, it will be sufficient food to also care for the parents if they’re smart shoppers. In this way, the alleged barrier to welfare benefits for immigrants is bypassed or mooted.

I don’t blame immigrants for seeking out and taking advantage of benefits we offer. I simply believe we should not offer them, but I wouldn’t limit that proscription only to immigrants. Our vast welfare state is an enormous magnet, and one that permits some very unsavory characters to make their way to the US both illegally, and legally, as we have seen in the case of the Tsarnaev brothers in Boston. The truth is that a liberal welfare state is wholly incompatible with a liberal immigration policy, as the experience of post-war Europe has demonstrated. This is because those immigrants will tend to change the culture and the polity of their new country at a rate faster than the subject culture can tolerate, particularly when drawn in all the faster by liberal welfare-state offerings.

I also note that for all their wistful pondering over the benefits of an open border, such advocates seem to be all one-way in their thinking. Why is it that this spreading of liberty must occur solely through immigration to this country? Why aren’t the libertarians emigrating, so zealously desirous to see all men free, that they must be willing to take their message to countries like Venezuela and Mexico? Surely, if only they can convince the governments of these third-world nation-states, they could prevail upon the leaders in those stricken countries to simply make their residents free. No? No takers? I suspect not many libertarians are ready to pack their bags for that journey, and with good reason: They wouldn’t stand a chance in Hell.

What gave the United States its edge in development and prosperity was not immigration, as Jeb Bush would have you believe. Instead, it was a set of ideals and beliefs taken nearly to their logical conclusion that had set the stage for the American explosion. It was not the immigrants alone, because the industrial revolution had commenced well before the great waves of immigrants at the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th centuries. The growth of American prosperity had progressed with the extension of freedom. Those early 20th century immigrants were indoctrinated rapidly in American history and culture, and they quickly blended into the great melting pot, further driving the growth of prosperity. Still, they brought with them some bad things too, including pieces of a polity that preferred collectivism, and it was out of this forge that the progressive era was born.

Most of the ideas of the progressive era were really European ideas. Margaret Sanger’s eugenics were well-received in Europe, and one wonders if with his fixation on the fertility of immigrants, Jeb Bush may be a fan. He certainly is in the progressive mold, after all. The point to understand, however, is that when the waves of European immigrants came to the United States, they had an immediate effect on the politics of the nation, both by force of their numbers, and by virtue of their political beliefs, then imported with them to their new home. This will be true of any immigrants in any age, but now, we face a threat of socialism. Some form of statism is dominant in virtually every nation from which we receive immigrants, and yet we do not hesitate even long enough to ask what cultural norms, beliefs, practices, and politics they will bring with them. This is a tragic error.

If the United States is or had been the greatest and freest nation on the planet, then it had owed to the foundation laid by our earliest immigrants, our founders and framers. To the degree its polity has changed, it owes in some large measure to the influx of immigrants. My question to libertarians is whether they believe it is possible to import so many souls born to tyranny and despotism without changing the nation for the worse. The one hopeful sign is that immigrants are, after all, the people who fled, whether for political or economic reasons, but if the greater number is for the latter, we cannot say with any surety how well they will reinforce the ideals that had built this country. Some years, perhaps decades hence, when some dozens of millions of new immigrants will have converted this country to just another third-world Republic, will the libertarians who insist now on open borders and liberal immigration policies likewise insist that native-born Americans be permitted to flee? If so, to where?

The United States of America has grown and prospered because for the most part, until the last half century, we had taken great care most of the time as to who could come and claim their bona fides as Americans, and under which conditions they could do so. The immigration bill now in process takes no such care, in fact discarding many provisions that might have helped in preventing our eventual collapse under the weight of an immigrant-heavy welfare-state. It’s time for libertarians to wake up, shake off the unicorns and rainbows of their perfect dreams, and realize that there is more at stake than some tortured notion of ideological consistency, of which I am generally myself a big fan. Sometimes, the plane on which one must remain consistent is a good deal more obvious, and this case is one of those: The United States, in order to remain a country into which any would willingly immigrate must remain a country of freedom and opportunity, but if we don’t first protect the culture that had created that freedom and opportunity, those virtues will rapidly diminish and die. Two decades hence, living in a Venezuela-like paradigm, lost in the wild places between totalitarianism and anarchy, it will be of slim consolation to the libertarian, open-borders advocate when he sees finally his dreams going up in flames around him.

Jeb Bush tells Americans by implication that we’re not fertile enough, either as breeders or as business creators. Meanwhile, Marco Rubio’s aide argues on behalf of bringing in more immigrants because American workers “just can’t cut it.” In truth, they likely agree with Barack Obama’s sentiment that we “didn’t build it,” though as a matter of good politics, they couldn’t admit it at the time. Imagine what it must be like to hang out among this band of brigands, who on the one hand seeks to impose their notions of compassion upon us, permitting millions of otherwise able-bodied Americans to languish as dependents on the welfare-state, who if challenged, might well be found to “cut it” very nicely. What Bush really means is that those of you who get up and go to work every day aren’t fertile enough, and that since they wish to continue growing the welfare-state, they need more workers who can be slaves to their system. After all, as Marco Rubio’s aide reminds us, the American worker just “can’t cut it.” These people are building a perfect anarchy, in which Americans struggle simply to make it through another day, and all the while, the elite subsist on the backs of our efforts.

The revelations of such a mindset should be all we need to understand why we’re losing the country, but as if all this is not bad enough, the Supreme Court has now ruled that Arizona can’t require voters to verify eligibility to vote. These people are stealing our country, right alongside the liberals, in league with them, and all we do is sit around watching it happen. Maybe they’re right… Maybe we don’t “cut it.” So let us consider this as we consider the fact that not only are we forbidden from verifying the eligibility of somebody who appears on a Federal election ballot, but we must also ignore the eligibility of those who seek to complete one. There is no effective border, and no effective restraint on anything except the American people, who are told they may not choose their own doctors, their own healthcare plans, or even their own address. Slowly but surely, and it’s quickening now, the entire American experiment in liberty is crashing down because we’ve had a century of organized, planned, anarchical plotting by those who would lead us. Our question, and indeed our demand must be: “Lead us where?” The answer may be as Joe Hakos suggests over at the Dryerreport.

A nation cannot exist without borders. A nation cannot last if its laws are not enforced. A nation will not stand that verifies neither the eligibility of its candidates nor the eligibility of its voters. The United States has been a nation built by immigrants, and always will be so long as we remember that immigration without restraint leads to anarchy. This is the singular aspect the DC establishment class has chosen to ignore, and it is at our great peril that we permit them to do so any longer. This is still our country, and we have every reason to defend its institutions, its legitimacy, and its ethos as established over the last two centuries. We cannot permit the insiders whose interests are best served in other ways to prevail upon us to yield our liberties, our standard of living, the rule of law that has acted as a brake on tyranny and violence, or any of the other facets of American life we have come to take for granted.

Of course, this may be the problem: For too long, too many Americans have take it for granted. For too long, too many of us thought it was all automatic, and if only we trusted the people in Washington DC, it would all work out for the best. It hasn’t worked out, at least not for us, and surely not for our children and theirs. This monstrous, decaying system in which the people who bear all the burdens matter least is the most despicable of all. Where else in the world can one go that the citizens of a country get the last crumbs on a table of plenty they have set? I don’t care if you’re a union laborer, or a white-collar, middle-management employee, but if this is permitted to continue, we will all be eating the table scraps at the feet of the anointed. No country can survive a collapse of law and lawfulness from the top downward, no matter how great and courageous its people may have been or may remain.

Notice that our nation suffers not from a lack of laws, but from the will to enforce them. Notice that in a country of 320 million souls, the twenty million of them who are here illegally are being served by a class of people who intend to profit from the efforts and exertions of another million-score of suckers. Even if our economy were booming, and it’s far from that, we shouldn’t permit people to come into this country in order to be exploited any more than we should permit them to be exploited for their votes. That isn’t what America is about, because done right, immigration can provide a nation with an influx of new ideas, renewed dedication to purpose, and fresh eyes on a whole universe of old problems, but this immigration bill, crafted by and for the lobbyists does nothing but undermine the republic that had made their existence possible. Let us not delay the matter for another day. Let us say it now, and with the conviction of the ages: This immigration bill must not be permitted to become law because it is the death of us all, and all we have labored to build. It is the diminution of a nation by inflation. It is the death-knell of a republic. This “Gang of Eight” bill gives Barack Obama precisely what he wants: Legalized anarchy. This is the death of nations, and ours is not exempt from that inflexible rule.

“There are American workers who, for lack of a better term, can’t cut it. There shouldn’t be a presumption that every American worker is a star performer. There are people who just can’t get it, can’t do it, don’t want to do it. And so you can’t obviously discuss that publicly.”

I’d like to address this sentiment, but for the purposes of this discussion, I am going to assume that Lowry’s reporting as well as the source materials he’s relying upon are accurate. Rather than direct my ire at Senator Rubio for employing such a dolt, or assuming that he shares the twisted reasoning of his staffer, I simply wish to direct this to the staffer in question:

You take a salary month after month, and month after month, the American worker is the poor rube paying it. The “American worker” is defined by men and women of all ages and races, including those who have been naturalized as citizens. To say that the “American worker can’t cut it” is the most intensely disdainful remark you could make about the people your boss was elected to serve! The people who keep the lights on in your office are the American worker. You defame the people who get up each morning and who beat you to the Starbucks, who also seem to “cut it” as they’re making your coffee. The people who keep the traffic flowing as you make your way to work seem to “cut it” as you move on down the road. The poor bastards who keep the lights burning certainly “cut it.”

You and your boss along with the ninety-odd other dolts and their staffs seem to have no problem with the American worker “cutting it” when it comes to spending their money, and spending their future earnings. No, I suspect the American worker “cuts it” just fine in that context. Your boss wasn’t elected to represent the Chamber of Commerce or to take their position on the immigration bill, but then again, maybe he was. True, there is no presumption that we’re all star performers, except when it’s time to pay the nation’s bills, but one would think that you’d have the decency to consider them before the interests of the Chamber of Commerce.

Do you want to know what really doesn’t “cut it?” I’ll be happy to tell you, on behalf of all the men and women who will have done more before 8 o’clock this morning than you will have done by day’s end: Foolish, arrogant staff to elected or appointed government officials who along with their bosses hold the American people in disdain don’t cut it! In short, you don’t cut it. I can understand why you wouldn’t want your remarks repeated in public. I can understand why Senator Rubio’s office doesn’t want NRO disseminating the remarks. As reported, what your remarks reveal about the sentiment of those in Washington DC who are pushing this immigration reform boondoggle is that the American people at large don’t “cut it” in your view.

Screw you. The very idea that you would take such a position in an argument against the American worker should tell voters everything they need to know about you, and about your boss. It surely didn’t take the space of four years for your boss to become captured by the machine, of which you are a part. The truth may be that he had been captive all along, and ultimately, he bears responsibility for employing you. We’re going to need to see what we can do about that, although I have no doubt that even if dismissed, you’ll wind up working for a lobbying firm, perhaps arguing on behalf of the Chamber of Commerce that the American worker “can’t cut it.”

In my nearly half-century, I have watched the American worker “cut it” under the most egregious of conditions at times, and while it is always true that there may be some person in some job who is not quite up to it, the fact is that the American worker has managed to create trillions upon trillions of dollars worth of wealth during that span, much of which you and your boss and those with and before him have squandered. Naturally, in a free market, you will get only as good as you give in most cases, but that’s a two-way street. Over the last decade, costs have risen for businesses, but for consumers, they have risen even more. How much has the average American’s wage increased?

There is nothing wrong with the American worker that the free market can’t fix, but sadly, you wish to tinker with the free market to the degree it still exists in the United States by changing the rules, in this case seeking to flood the market with millions of new employees. All of this is because your real bosses – the people for whom you work while we who “can’t cut it” pay you – want bargain prices for labor and because your opposites on the political spectrum want more votes. The truth is that you’re all a gang of criminals. What this Immigration Reform bill will do to the American people, particularly the American worker, and to the American polity is and should be considered a criminal act. I view it as treason. How well does treason pay in Washington DC? Apparently, quite well, with the tax-payer footing the bill.

It’s finally time the American worker taught you just a little bit about who runs this frigging show. You wizards sit there in Washington DC, looking out over the land, imagining yourselves as captains of industries you could not build, you could not grow, and you certainly could not staff. You dispense with our liberties and property and our wealth as though it had been yours to do by right, but when there are budget shortfalls because you spend our wealth like there’s no tomorrow, you undoubtedly conclude it’s because we, the American people, simply “can’t cut it.”

Here’s a little tip, and I hope you and your boss and all your analogs all over Capitol Hill will understand: This immigration reform bill stinks, and if you pass it, we who allegedly “can’t cut it” are going to send your asses home. If there’s one thing to be learned in all of this, it is that we have left it in your hands far too often and without the oversight your intransigence has earned, in large measure because in the crippled economy is making it increasingly difficult to “cut it” as we pay our monthly bills while still funding your bloated salary.

“Can’t cut it?” This comes from a staff member of an institution that has done nothing in more than five years to substantially relieve the burden on the American worker. This comes from a glorified civil servant who enjoys the best benefits the government offers. This sorry notion is born in a city that disposes of Americans and their wealth without the first thought to the morality of having done so. This idea is the byproduct of a select club of people who cannot(or will not) balance a budget, fix the welfare-state bearing down on the American worker, or even protect the rights of the average American who simply wants to go about his life and business in peace.

This legislation was crafted as a compromise between big labor and big business, neither of which give a damn about the American worker. Sir, what doesn’t “cut it” is your legislation. What doesn’t “cut it” is your point of view. That which doesn’t “cut it” is your deal-making with or on behalf of everybody under the sun except those who pay the freight on this whole mess. What doesn’t “cut it” is the manner in which you so recklessly dismiss and disregard the hopes, the dreams, and the tireless exertions of the American worker. What doesn’t “cut it” is how you talk about us when we’re not in the room, which is most of the time, because we’re too busy trying to “cut it” in this mess of an economy you have made. Thatdoesn’t cut it. Youdon’t cut it.

There’s a good deal more I could say to this staffer and all those like him on Capitol Hill who look with disdain or outright contempt upon the American people and the American worker, but most of it is not fit to print. I dearly hope the American people will wake up to what this latest amnesty attempt will do to their lives and to their country, but I know that under these economic conditions, they’re awfully busy trying to “cut it.”

Jeb Bush was addressing the Faith and Freedom Coalition on Friday when he inexplicably said something that is almost certain to give him grief for a long time to come, and I promise to be among those reminding you. His remark was aimed at the question of immigration reform, and his general point, I think, may have been that immigration sparks a certain vibrancy in an economic system(assuming it meets certain conditions,) but what Bush’s remark reveals is the reason I don’t think immigrants will wind up supporting him. Establishment Republicans imagine immigrants as the way out of our budgetary morass, because they expect that an influx of working-age people having children will grow the tax base to the extent that it will overpower the generational problem presented by the retiring of the “baby boomers.” The problems with this theory are many, but Republicans of the establishment mold like Bush have put on blinders. For the better part of a half-century, the powers in post-war Europe adopted immigration policies aimed at the same basic problem: The welfare state was unsustainable and the only way to prop it up would be by bringing in immigrants. Europe is now paying mightily for this policy, and it is evinced by the riots we have seen across the continent as Muslim immigrants run rampant through the capitals of Europe. Said Bush:

“Immigrants are more fertile, and they love families, and they have more intact families, and they bring a younger population. Immigrants create an engine of economic prosperity.”

The particularly egregious use of the term “fertile” aside, what Bush is here saying confirms every word I have alleged: This wave of immigration they’re now pursuing is intended to prop up our welfare state. Bush, like his brother and father before him, doesn’t have any intention of slowing the growth of government, but merely wishes to increase the revenues available to it. That’s it. That’s all there really is to this, and all there’s ever been to this, and notions like assimilation go careening out the window. There will be no border security, and no effort at assimilation, but instead a patently shrewd attempt to pad government revenues with the labor of young, “fertile” people.

I wonder if prospective immigrants understand, either waiting lawfully in line, or trying to short-cut around it, that all of this talk about compassion and coming out of the shadows is really about them taking on the yokes of beasts of burden, with nothing more or less than their ability to drag this nation along through the mire of the welfare state as as the object. As if this isn’t bad enough, Marco Rubio now explains that we need the immigrants as new, legalized employees to pay the taxes that will fund border security. If you have had any misunderstanding about the motives of this entire “immigration reform” bill nonsense, this must clarify the matter: It’s about funding the leviathan that has become our federal government.

People who are less politically-engaged frequently ask me what is the difference between a Republican and a Conservative. While the explanation is certainly worthy of an article or two all its own, the simplest way to view it seems to be that conservatives concern themselves with principles of right and wrong, while Republicans concern themselves only with how to make a thing work in a very pragmatic, morality-agnostic manner. It doesn’t matter to Jeb Bush why existing Americans have a lower fertility rate than recent immigrants. It doesn’t matter to him why it is that they create fewer new businesses than recent immigrants. He merely accepts it as is, and then looks for a way to fill the short-run or mid-term gaps, consequences be damned.

Since pinheads who call themselves “Republican” seem not to understand why Americans would slow their rate of reproduction, or why they would create fewer businesses, let me make it perfectly clear: People like Jeb Bush and his family are the reason. Rationally, once invested in life in America, it’s rather more difficult to decide to have more children if each successive child adds a substantial burden that may affect the prospects of each existing child. When my own daughter was born, Mr. Bush’s father was President, preparing to break his “read my lips” pledge. The economy was doing poorly, and this acted to shake up our view on whether it was proper to bring more children into the world. We wondered if we wanted to bring more children into a world in which they would become beasts of burden for a welfare state George H.W. Bush’s OMB director at the time projected that the net tax rate on children born in 1990(like our daughter) would wind up being around eighty percent! Why did we have only one child? We couldn’t afford two!

Immigrants don’t realize this yet, because they’re unaware of the nuts and bolts of our escalating welfare state from the paying side, at least initially. Over time, they learn it, as their rate of reproduction or business creation likewise slows. As they struggle to make a little ground against the economic forces weighing down upon them, they become disinclined to add new economic burdens to their own family situations. Reproduction slows. What Bush and those like him are gambling is that a new sea of immigrants freshly legalized will still be too poor, too uneducated, and too busy to notice this until they’ve created another generation or two of workers who will struggle to fill the coffers of government.

What Mr. Bush and those like him will not do is to consider why our existing population’s reproduction rate has slowed to below replacement. What Mr. Bush will not concede is that finding new ways to fund the welfare state is not the answer. It doesn’t need more funds. It needs to be demolished. The problem is that as people obtain slightly more prosperity, they tend to focus on how to maintain and extend it. Part of obtaining that prosperity is education in one form or another, and all of these things lead people to slow their reproduction. These things tend to make them more risk-averse, so until they cross another significant threshold, starting a new business venture is also unlikely.

What Jeb and the other members of his family(both real and political) wish for us to believe is that there is something innate about immigrants that makes them more “fertile.” What they are unwilling to admit is that the problem isn’t with the “fertility” of existing Americans, except that in a struggle to maintain their standard of living, they have policed themselves, unless they are captive client-members of the welfare state, in which case, they’re another burden for the rest of us to carry. Even if one is able to rationalize Jeb’s views as merely misguided pragmatism, one must confront the fact of how he views people.

Bush, like his brother and his father, seems to hold a worldview that permits him to see the issue as one of how to fulfill a need to keep the beast alive. The fact that the beastly welfare-state is destroying the country is a matter of little significance if he can find enough human lubricant to keep its wheel turning a while longer. Generations of Americans struggling against the growing weight of the state are of no consequence to him. Lives of real people demolished in the process of building the leviathan are of little or no concern. Neither his view of native-born Americans nor the legions of waiting immigrants offers any comfort when considering the future he envisions, in which the state continues to escalate as a burden upon the populace.

Some number of years into the future, Jeb Bush and those like him will appear before us to try to give us the next round of amnesty. By then, the country will be in crippling poverty with few exceptions. Civil strife will be rampant. The welfare state will reign supreme in all aspects of life. The problem with his view is that he’s more interested in making it to that next occasion than he is in preventing it in the first place. If you really wonder about the difference between a Republican and a Conservative, this then may serve as the key: Republicans don’t make waves, and go along with the flow because they wish to maintain the status quo indefinitely. Conservatives know it cannot last.

It shouldn’t be a surprise that nearly seven in ten Americans who look at the immigration bill pending in the Senate as another sell-out of America, with that number arguing that we must enforce our borders immediately. It’s also not a surprise that Senate Republicans are helping to support this bill despite the damage it will ultimately do to our nation. Twenty-eight Republicans decided to sell us out and join with the Democrats in bringing the Immigration bill to the Senate for action, and as is ever the case, when you see substantial percentages of the two parties cooperating on anything, you must also know that they are acting in the name of the Washington DC establishment, that cares genuinely for no party but for the non-stop celebration inside the DC beltway, bought and paid-for by we taxpayers. Now, they’re galloping toward a so-called “Comprehensive Immigration Reform” bill that threatens to end the United States as you have known it. The worst of it may be that while nearly three in four Americans realize this is a sell-out, and want to secure the border first, there are still one-fourth of Americans who actually think this amnesty plan is a good idea.

Imagine my surprise while talking to an SEIU member who thinks this bill is a boon to his prospects, and is four-square behind the bill, whatever may be in it, because he’s been told by union uppers that it’s important for the union, with the implication that what is good for the union will be good for him. What the fellow doesn’t quite understand is that while this bill will certainly be good for the union bosses, it will be devastating to his own life. They’re being told that most of these legalized illegals will wind up as members of the union, but they do not question the veracity of the claim, or even whether if true, such a thing would be good for existing union members. Instead, they’re given their marching orders, and they’ve been told to support the bill. When twelve million illegals “step out of the shadows,” the first thing they’ll be looking for is legitimate, lawful employment. Who will that hurt? It will hurt every currently-employed person in the country, minus the politicians, who are insulated from market forces. Are union bosses more like working folk, or more like politicians?

In much the same way, the libertarian sect that seems to follow anybody with the last name “Paul” continues to push the notion that this is an idea in favor of the free market. In one sense, that is true, but it is an ideal to be pursued in the long run and not to be imposed by the registering of yeas and nays along with the sweep of a presidential pen. You see, there can be no free market if there is no rule of law, or what would keep the market free? A free market is only possible where there exists a framework of laws that protect the rights and properties of a society’s members. There can be no protection of rights when lawlessness is the only rule, with the government imposing a legalized form of anarchy in place of the rule of law. Without a thorough program in place to assimilate new would-be Americans, how is it expected that they would respect a rule of law in which they have no investment?

Ladies and gentlemen, we’re being shafted on a colossal scale, and every one of these politicians know it. They’ve been bound and determined to shove this down the nation’s throat in a post-election environment for years, and now they have just the right mix of Democrats and Republicans, scoundrels all, to shove this down our throats. The following 28 Republican Senators need never ask for my vote in any election, for any office, ever, and I don’t care who endorses them:

These people are jackals and parasites who have sold out their respective electorates. Don’t tell me how clever Rand Paul is, or how smart is Marco Rubio, or what a solid guy is John Cornyn. (That last worthless weasel is up for re-election in my state next year, and I will vote for the devil himself if that’s what it takes to get Cornyn out of there. This is not the first time he has screwed the country in this fashion, and left in office, it won’t be the last.)

When all of this goes wrong, this same list of weasels, back-stabbers, fakes and flakes will claim that they had been voting with only the best of intentions. No, they aren’t. They’re participating in a gang-rape of the nation, and they’re quite pleased with themselves. People may wonder why I’ve gone off the grid, and there’s no denying my various personal/health issues are the primary drivers, but this bunch – this gang – of America-hating corporatists are the primary reason. They’re going to win if they have to immobilize the nation to have their way with her.

The most galling part may be that the few allies they have in the general populace are primarily the union workers who have been told by their alleged “leaders” that this is good for them, while their union bosses wine and dine at the White House with the President and the very captains of the industries who they tell their rank-and-file they are supposed to hate. Both sides have been sold out by their respective parties, and both to the same cronies.

If we’re to have any chance to stop this, we will need to melt the phone lines, faxes, and in-boxes of every Republican in the House. The Democrats are hopeless. Most of the Republicans are treacherous. We need something we do not now have, and that’s a voice. If we do not find it, and soon, they’re going to break this country for all time by Labor Day, and there will be nothing that we will then do to stop this.

Remember, they have the magic formula all worked out: Get enough Republicans in the Senate to break the filibuster to let the bill come to the floor. Then use the 60 rule to keep out amendments. The bill will go to final passage, and then it’s off to the House, where Boehner will cobble together a gang of Republicans to join with the Democrats to pass a bill more than seventy percent of the American people oppose. After that, it’s a Rose Garden signing ceremony at the White House, and the nation is finished. That’s the procedure. The only way that procedure can be stopped is to make a stand at every House Republican’s office, and even then, they won’t give a holy rip about what we think.

It’s time to end the poetic verbiage and simply state what is: These people, in both parties, are out to wreck the country and wreck it beyond retrieval. There are undoubtedly a few in Congress who genuinely oppose this, but they are so few and so weakened that they afford little hope. On the other hand, as somebody in Las Vegas recently reminded me, there’s always some hope, and some times, that’s all you have to hold. We must push back with all we have or lose the country. Hoping our best efforts will hold this bill back may be all we have left, but let this not deter us in that effort.

Speaking of the people who are fiddling while the nation burns, here’s a group happily stoking the fire. While average Americans struggle to keep their heads above water, inside the DC beltway, the same crowd Sarah Palin observed “yukkin’ it up” at the White House Correspondents Dinner are actively plotting the end of the republic. After all, it’s a new week and therefore a new opportunity to shove despicable legislation down throats of the American people to which most of them stand opposed. As Byron York has pointed out in the pages of the Washington Examiner, your criticisms of the bill are being ignored. They know you’re opposed, but they’re pretending not to hear you. As York also reported, despite the fact that the response has been overwhelmingly negative to a page put up by Marco Rubio(R-FL) to take suggestions for improving the Comprehensive Immigration Reform bill, there has been no indication that Rubio or other members of the “Gang-of-Eight” have any intentions of backing down. Yes, if there is anybody in Washington DC who is completely out of touch with American people, the Amnesty AssClowns are at the head of the class.

One friend today quipped that the reason Barack Obama is pushing so hard for an amnesty bill is that he will avail himself of the law, but one needn’t make jokes about the President’s questionable origins to get the real point across: If an amnesty bill passes the Congress, the Democrat Party will own the keys to the kingdom in perpetuity. Nobody is more conscious of that fact than Barack Hussein Obama. It represents the opportunity to demolish conservatives in the mid-terms next year, in which a large number of fast-tracked illegals would move down the proposed “path to citizenship,” offering Democrats an opportunity to pass any bill they please.

Yes, ladies and gentlemen, the attendees at the White House Correspondents Dinner are indeed out of touch with the mainstream of America. In the aftermath of the Boston Marathon Bombings, Americans have been reminded how a lack of enforcement of existing laws has made us more vulnerable at home, so they’re understandably in no mood for loosening immigration policies. Despite the promises of politicians like Lindsey Graham, John McCain, Marco Rubio and the other members of the “Gang-of-Eight,” the American people understand that making allegedly tougher laws with hundreds of gaping loopholes will not improve our security, in part because it’s a logical farce, but also because more than three decades of promises on the issue have yet to be delivered. After all, apart from a majority of New Yorkers, who really believes Charles “Chuck-U” Schumer(D-NY) has the best interests of the nation in mind, rather than the furtherance of the aims and agenda of the Democrat Party?

This week, the Senate will try to move this legislation, and they will try to do it without amendments if Harry Reid can find support. This bill is the Holy Grail for Democrats, but as I explained on Saturday, the reasons so many Republicans are going along is because they’ve either been sold a bill of goods by the Beltway political class, or because they’re out to negate the influence of conservatives in the electorate. There really can’t be any other reason apart from ignorance, or perhaps money, and if you don’t understand how Republicans could sign on for the extinction of their own party as an electoral force, you need only consider the party shift of 1995, in which Democrats moved over to the Republican Party for their electoral survival, not because their views had changed so much as because they wanted to remain in power. Many Democrats who had barely survived the surge of 1994 merely changed horses. If this amnesty bill goes through, you can expect the same thing in 2014, only this time, it will be Republicans jumping ship to join the Democrats.

It’s going to be a difficult fight, and conservatives should expect that the permanent political class in Washington DC will do everything it is able to ignore any outcry arising among the American people, but after more than a week for facts about the Boston jihadis and their subsistence on welfare as legal immigrants, this may turn out to have been the worst possible time for the DC “ass-clowns” to move this legislation. If your response is ferocious enough, Harry Reid could be forced to shelve the legislation to await a more opportune moment. Some blue-state conservatives have confided that they don’t bother calling their senators any longer, because staffers are frequently rude and obnoxious, but the truth is that the members need to hear from their constituents particularly if they’ve been inclined to support this bill. Besides, it’s time to make good on the promise to turn Barack Obama into a lame-duck President. We need this win – America needs this win – and we shouldn’t let the Amnesty AssClowns deter us from being heard.